Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1668th meeting held on 08.09.2022 respectively.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1668th meeting held on 08.09.2022 respectively was discussed.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout plan at its meeting held on July 29, 2016, and the building plans for additions & alterations (New Sadhak block, training block, kitchen block and library block) were approved in the meeting held on October 17, 2018.

3. The proposal for NOC for completion (part- for Ashirwad Block, and Dinning Block only) 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 nomenclature of the building blocks appears to have been not in harmony with the approval (formal) given, the Sadhak block has been written as ‘Ashirwad Block’, and Kitchen Block has been written as ‘Dinning Block’, the same needs to be corrected (as per approved layout plan) and resubmitted. Also, photographs submitted for a dining block need to be labelled correctly.

b. The proposal has been received for NOC for Completion (part- for Ashirwad Block, and Dinning Block only). 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 with respect to the sanctioned plan, if any.

c. The proposal has been submitted for NOC for Completion (part). An appropriate number of photographs of the completed superstructure (for which NOC for completion is required) shall be provided with proper labelling/delineation and uncut/clear photographs, including nighttime photographs, from all sides to substantiate the actual work executed at the site.

d. Parking provisions to be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

e. For a better understanding of the proposal side by side photographs ‘Before and After’ of the constructed building blocks must be provided.

f. The proposal being at the Completion stage needs to provide an actual Artwork executed at the site. The same is missing. Public art of suitable scale to the context, which is also visible from outside the site, is to be installed by using an appropriate medium/theme, in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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 North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on January 17, 2018, and specific observations were given.

3. The proposal for NOC for Completion (Part) in respect of plot no. A-7 (Phase-I-comprising of mini campus, admin block, and startup block), Institutional Area, IAMR Campus, Narela received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., North DMC in parts ‘B’ and ‘C’ of the Proforma, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the observations/recommendations received, discussion held online and the submission made, the following observation is to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that utilities including water tanks etc., are visible on the terrace and broken tiles on top of the building façade of ‘Startup Block’ spoil the visibility and the aesthetics of the area, it needs to be ensured that all services be screened appropriately.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal (Main block: two Basements + Ground + 9 floors) at its meeting held on October 14, 2009, and subsequently accepted the NOC for completion at its meeting held on July 26, 2012, specific observations were given.   

3. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of Oncology Block: 2 Basements + Ground + 12 floors) at its meeting held on December 16, 2015, and accepted the NOC for completion (addition of Oncology Block: 2 Basements + Ground floor) at its meeting held on April 18, 2018, specific observations were given.   

4. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations in Oncology Block (addition of first to eleventh floors over an existing ground floor & two basements) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect (online) to seek clarifications on several discrepancies noticed in the submission including not providing relevant important information related to the proposal. Several attempts were made to connect her (online), including telephonically, but the architect did not respond. In absence of online discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the area where the proposal is likely to construct from the first to eleventh floors is found to be missing in the submission. Updated uncut site photographs (of the area where construction is to be done) including the existing two basements & ground floor must be submitted to understand the actual site conditions better.

b. It was observed that some of the old photographs of the site have been used in the current proposal which is not appreciated by the Commission. Updated uncut photographs must be used for future submissions.

c. In the absence of a discussion with the architect to seek clarifications on several issues related to the current submission, the Commission got some of the information verified from the site, it was discovered that the construction (of portion for which the proposal has been submitted) at the site is in full swing and the superstructure has already been constructed up to the eleventh floor. It was revealed that the architect/proponent has submitted a proposal, for its consideration, by misrepresenting the facts and figures which is against the spirit of ease of doing business (EoDB). A corrected submission with all the requisite information must be submitted for its judicious review.

d. The parking plan has indicated having several lots of double stack parking arrangements along the boundary wall on the surface for fulfilling the requisite parking requirements of the current proposal, but 3D views of the same have not been provided. The Commission observed that double stack parking arrangements could have visual and urban aesthetic implications for the site and surroundings. An appropriate number of annotated 3D views of the same must be supplemented to understand its overall impact on the site & surroundings.

e. The architect in its report (page 17) has indicated that:

“…….a basement block dedicatedly for parking will be developed in the south direction of the existing block….”

The Commission observed that the location and relevant details of the same have not been indicated in the current submission, the same shall be supplemented for a better understanding of the Commission.

f. Discrepancies have been observed in the submission, page no-14 of the project report has given the reference to ground + 12 storeys, but the current proposal is for first to eleventh floors only, needs clarification and coordinated submission must be submitted for consideration of the Commission.

g. Rooftop utilities are missing in the submission. Solar panels must be installed to the maximum to 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.

h. 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.

5. 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.

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 directly by the PWD-GNCTD (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 16, 1993, and specific observations were given. The layout and building plan proposal for hostels, staff quarters, and the part academic complex was approved in the meeting held on September 24, 1993, and specific observations were given.

3. The Commission approved the building plan proposal (Academic block- 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B) at its meeting held on May 18, 2018, and specific observations were given.

4. The building plan proposal (addition of academic block behind block-6) 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 addition of an academic block behind block-6 is part of a large campus with many existing buildings in close vicinity. To understand the scale, form, character, material and architecture of the surrounding buildings, an appropriate number of 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 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 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.

e. The elevations and sections need to be detailed clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. The project is submitted at the Formal stage and 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.

f. A combined mobility plan showing a seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plan from outside is to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site better. Parking to be as per appliable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

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

h. 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.

i. 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.

j. 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.

5. 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.

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 DIAL (online) for consideration by the Commission.

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

3. The Commission approved the building plans proposal in respect of the Commercial building at LP-1B-01, Delhi Aerocity (Gateway District), IGI Airport at its meeting held on January 06, 2022, and specific observations were given.

4. The revised building plan proposal in respect of Commercial building at LP-1B-01, Delhi Aerocity (Gateway District), IGI Airport 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. Based on the discussion (online) held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that rooftop utilities are missing in the submission. A lot of space is available on the terrace for the installation of Solar panels and help reduce the carbon footprint. The same shall be represented in the 3D views with a screening mechanism for review by the Commission.

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, solar panels, DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc. shall 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.

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 Commission approved the Master plan layout for Gateway and Downtown district, for DIAL at IGI Airport at its meeting held on March 16, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal in respect of Commercial building at LP-03-01, Delhi Aerocity (Downtown District), IGI Airport received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the discussion (online) held and the submission made and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. Mechanical parking provisions have been shown in basement-I to achieve the requisite parking requirements. The architect/proponent shall ensure its actual execution at the site and the same shall be examined at the time of receiving the proposal at the completion stage.

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, solar panels, DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc. shall 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 for additions/alterations (Construction of lift, staircase, ramps for physically challenged, public toilet) at Triveni Kala Sangam, 205 Tansen Marg.

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

2. No previous reference of approvals (formal) was found in the available records of the Commission.

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (Construction of lift, staircase, ramps for physically challenged, public toilet, relocation of doors and windows, erection and removal of internal partition) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the comments given by the concerned local body i.e., NDMC. Based on the comments received and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The quality of 3d views is not appropriate. They are very sketchy and the scale, proportion, materials etc. are not understood. Annotated 3D views clearly showing the additions/alterations (including public toilet, the addition of staircase (near open-air theatre) etc.) proposed shall be submitted specifying the materials to be used.

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

c. 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.

4. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not fully comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory.

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

Layout and Building plans proposal for additions/alterations in respect of Shama CGHS Ltd. On plot no. 32, Sector-10, Dwarka.

1. The proposal was forwarded 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 September 08, 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-06092222045 dated 12.09.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that unsatisfactory replies to its earlier observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-06092222045 dated 12.09.2022 has been given.

b. 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.

c. All temporary coverings/extensions must be removed.

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

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

Completion plans proposal in respect of Warehouse and Commercial Development at Sarita Vihar for NDRAVG Business Park.

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

2. The proposal was deferred.

Completion plans proposal in respect of Multi storeyed flats Housing (Type-V and Community facility block) for Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL) near Leela Hotel Moti Bagh.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal (for Type-V, Type VI and Community facilities) at its meeting held on July 18, 2017, and accepted the NOC for completion for Tower Type-VI (basement, stilt+ 09 floors) at its meeting held on August 12, 2021.

3. The proposal for NOC for Completion (part- for Type-V and Community facility block) received (online) at the Completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., NDMC in parts ‘B’ and ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the observations/recommendations received, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The proposal has been submitted at the completion stage but an appropriate number of photographs of the Community facility block (including interior areas, work of public art, basement, double stack parking provisions given in the basement etc.) of the built construction to substantiate actual work executed at the site, has not been provided. They need to be submitted with proper uncut views from all sides.

b. Solar panels are visible on the residential block (Type-V) spoiling the visual and the aesthetics of the areas and 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, if any.

4. Overall, the scheme submitted for NOC for completion is not comprehensible and substantiated by the requisite information making it difficult for the Commission to examine it judiciously.

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 DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 24, 2005, and subsequently accepted the NOC for completion at its meeting held on May 08, 2006.   

3. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for addition/alterations (addition of 3^rd Floor over the existing basement+ Ground+ 2 Floors) at its meeting held on January 23, 2013.

4. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations (addition of the fourth floor, external staircase, public toilet, vehicular lift, toilets and staff rooms on each floor etc.) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on 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) 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 Commission did not approve the proposal for the Upgradation of the District Centre at its meeting held on June 23, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The proposal for the Upgradation of the District Centre at Bhikaji Cama Place (Renovation of Plaza, Construction of shops, Toilet, Development works including Roads, Footpaths & Parking etc.) 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-20062222033 dated 29.06.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that unsatisfactory replies to its earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-20062222033 dated 29.06.2022 has been given.

b. The proposal is at the formal stage but the quality of submission is unsatisfactory, inappropriate and found to be not comprehensible. Scanned copies of a report have been used to present the proposed design scheme at the formal stage. The 3d views are not expressive, and comprehensible and do not provide a truthful picture of the materials used. An appropriate number of enhanced 3D views must be submitted with better visuals for judicious consideration of the proposal.

c. Provision of a sky bridge, lifts and escalators have been made in the design proposal but their details have not been captured in the 3D views presented. The Commission opines that it will have a huge impact on the overall visual and urban aesthetics of the area. These elements must be captured in the design proposal sufficiently and resubmitted for the consideration of the Commission.

d. Four options of Kiosks have been presented for consideration. Options no-1 & 4 are found to be more appropriate.

e. Details of tensile structure design appear to be fine but the funnel requires more detailing.

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

3. The Commission did not approve the layout and Masterplan proposal for the Redevelopment of the AIIMS Campus on either side of Aurobindo Marg at its meeting held on September 15, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. The revised Layout and Master plan proposal for Redevelopment of AIIMS Campus on either side of Aurobindo Marg received (online) at the formal stage were scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-06092224028 dated 19.09.2022 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, comments given by the concerned local body i.e., NDMC, replies submitted, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. It was observed that identical numbering of the entry gates has been used in the redevelopment master plan. Since the area of the redevelopment plan is very large covering an area of 196.10 Acres. It was suggested to reassign the numbers to the gates for easy navigation/understanding of the users (patients/visitors etc.).

b. The details provided for the entrance gate & boundary wall appears to be not consistent with the 3D views, elevations, grill sections, and other relevant details submitted. All drawings must be coordinated with each other. It was suggested to submit at least three alternative design options (including 3D views, nighttime views and other details etc.)  with varying details, designs, themes, material specifications etc., for examination by the Commission.

c. Provision for the public toilets under Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) with access from outside has been indicated in the master plan. The Commission opines that considering their locations 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.

d. The design strategy of the various building blocks likely to come up later on the campus was presented through 3D views. It was observed that every building has a different architectural vocabulary including form, architectural elements, materials, and textures in the elevation seem to be varying largely which could impart a disintegrated look to the entire complex etc., being part of the same large campus, it was suggested to consider common architectural vocabulary.

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

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 Commission did not accept the Concept of building plans proposal (demolition & reconstruction) at its meeting held on September 01, 2022, specific observations were given.

5. The revised layout and building plan proposal (demolition & reconstruction) received (online) at the conceptual stage were scrutinised along with previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-03082227043 dated 06.09.2022 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 revised submissions made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The 3d views are to be made more expressive with enhanced visuals including public interface areas, nighttime views (to understand the lighting mechanism better), and bird-eye views, to impart a truthful picture of the materials used on the facade. An appropriate number of enhanced 3D views from various angles must be submitted with better visuals for judicious consideration of the proposal.

b. Rooftop utilities are missing in the submission. Solar panels must be installed to the maximum to 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.

c. 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.

d. It was observed that the location of the public toilet and the guard room etc. are also part of the submission but their detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have not been submitted. The Commission observed that these components 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.

e. 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.

f. All water tanks, DG sets, 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.

6. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission in the next submission (formal stage) and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

‘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.

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 the 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 15, 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 previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-14092255055 dated 19.09.2022. Based on the replies submitted, and revised submissions made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. All temporary coverings/extensions must be removed.

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

c. 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.

d. 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.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the proposal at its meeting held on September 15, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plans proposal 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-10092223059 dated 19.09.2022. Based on the replies submitted, the discussion held and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. It was suggested to increase the density and numbers of Solar panels on the terrace over the fuel dispenser area.

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 South 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. Window frames on the outer façade of the building appear to be not articulated sufficiently in the building plans, it is assumed at the time of completion windows shall be recessed appropriately, with the use of aluminium & UPVC, such that windows would be able to open sufficiently for cross ventilation.

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, outdoor 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.