Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1669th meeting held on 15.09.2022 respectively.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1669th meeting held on 15.09.2022 respectively was discussed.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the East 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. Three options of public artwork were presented, the option no-1 was found to be accepted.

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-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.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on December 28, 2017, and February 27, 2019, respectively, specific observations were given. And the proposal for NOC for completion was not accepted in the meeting held on June 02, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the proforma ‘B’ and ‘C’ received from the concerned local body i.e., North DMC and previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-01062249004 dated 08.06.2022. Based on the proforma received, replies submitted and the revised submission made the building plan proposal for NOC for completion is accepted.

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 September 15, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The revised proposal for the petrol pump 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-09092223058 dated 19.09.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made the following observations are to be complied with:

a. Three options of public artwork were presented, the option no-1 was found to be accepted.

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-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.

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 Asset LP-1B-02, 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 held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission opines that an appropriate number of nighttime views from various angles including birds-eye views must be supplemented to understand the lighting mechanism better.

b. The Commission observed that the longest side of the proposed building (facing National Highway 48) materiality and structural stability for the external surface are not sufficiently elucidated.  This includes its fixing with the superstructure, detail on meeting ground, serviceability of the vacant spaces behind these spaces etc.

c. Completeness of the external façade with materiality is to be detailed (blow up details including detailed sections etc., be supplemented) including fixing mechanism, maintenance etc., for its judicious review by the Commission.

d. 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.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal 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.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal for plots no-A, C, and D at its meeting held on March 18, 2020, and specific observations were given.

3. The proposal for NOC for completion (part-for plot-A) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the proforma ‘B’ and ‘C’ received from the concerned local body i.e., DDA. Based on the proformas received, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that due thought had been given by the Commission while approving the scheme (for plot no-A) in terms of visual & urban aesthetics of the area, materials, finishes, architectural elements, façade, location of advertisement panels etc. While comparing the approved 3D views with the submitted pictures of the actual completed work on the façade, it is evident that enormous deviations have been made on the façade so much so that it has been transformed completely, in terms of material, architectural features & elements etc., which is not appreciated by the Commission.

b. Also, while approving the proposal at the formal stage a basement with mechanical parking has been provided to accommodate the requisite parking requirements, but the actual photographs substantiating its actual construction at the site are missing. An appropriate number of uncut photographs including interior areas, basement, mechanical parking, toilet under Swachh Bharat Mission, guard room, service room, barrier-free movement etc, be supplemented for the review of the Commission.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal 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.

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

2. Earlier, the Commission approved the building plan proposal (2B+G+9) at its meeting held on October 31, 2012, and the revised proposal for (2B+G+3) was approved by the Commission at its meeting held on January 18, 2019, specific observations were given.

3. The revised layout and building plan proposal (for 2B+G+4) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. It was observed that the site photographs of the area where the proposal is likely to be built are missing. Also, 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.

b. Also, 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. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

c. From the 3D views submitted the overall façade of the proposed building appears to be too loud, seems to be cluttered i.e., too many design elements. It was suggested to be relooked to enhance the scale and grandness of the building with appropriate architectural elements. Overall aesthetics to be improved, architectural elements to be simplified.

d. The area accommodating DG sets, pump rooms etc, provided on the surface outside at the ground floor be appropriately screened so as not to mar the aesthetics of the area and be shown appropriately using an appropriate medium.

e. 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.

f. All water tanks, plumbing pipes, service equipment, DG Set, DG exhaust 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. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal 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.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on February 12, 1993, and the proposal for additions/alterations was approved in the meeting held on January 19, 1992. NOC for completion was accepted in the meeting held on December 15, 2006.

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of the fourth floor and a large basement for bus/car parking) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect but he was not available. In absence of an online discussion with the architect and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that an insufficient number of site photographs have been provided especially of the only available large green open area where a large basement has been proposed. An appropriate number of uncut photographs from various angles must be provided to understand the overall site conditions better.

b. Discrepancies have been observed in the submission, five staircases and a 6.00 m wide ramp have been provided in the available open green space to access the basement proposed to accommodate the requisite parking including Bus/car etc., but the same has not been incorporated in the 3D views submitted. The Commission opines that it could have huge implications on the visual, urban aesthetics of the area. The 3d views must be corrected and an appropriate number of 3D views from various angles (including bird's eye view) be submitted for the review of the Commission.

c. The Commission observed that the school is functional and almost all the available open (green) space has been converted into a large basement (without structural arrangements) with the provision of bus/car parking which appears to be an uneconomical option. Alternative arrangements must be explored to accommodate the requisite parking (existing + proposed) and presented for the consideration of the Commission.

d. Only one ramp of 6.00 m width has been provided for the ingress and outgress of the vehicles including buses, which appears to be not feasible. Separate ramps be provided to enable conflict-free vehicular movement.

e. Also, a pedestrian (students) and vehicular circulation in the site is not shown properly. A combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian (students) and vehicular movement plan from outside be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site better. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement.

f. Student drop-off areas are not understood properly, the bus drop-off areas for the students must be indicated on the site plan with a movement pattern.

g. The project is submitted at the Formal stage must submit detailed sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site) from end to end of the design proposal scheme (especially large basement areas, ramps, staircases etc.) be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme better. 

h. 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.

i. The Commission observed 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. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal  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.

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 22, 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-20092224030 dated 27.09.2022 and comments given by the concerned local body i.e., NDMC. Based on the replies submitted, comments received, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. A typical design of a public toilet under the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) was presented along with the various options of the main gate and boundary wall (including grill details) have been provided by the architect. Based on the design options submitted the preferences are as under:

A. Gate (facing Sri Aurobindo Marg & Ring Road):

The design option no-1 presented for gate no. E1 is accepted but with the following suggestions:

i. The gate number be written as E1 instead of E.1 and similar format followed for other gates

ii. Acronyms for AIIMS written vertically on the columns on either side in English and Hindi be removed.

iii. The spiral feature running from bottom to top, in the central part just above the Logo for ‘AIIMS’, be removed.

B. Gate (for Shiva Road & Trauma Centre Extension):

i. Three options of the gate were presented.

ii. The design option no-1 presented for gate no. E8 is accepted but with the suggestion that the Gate number be written as E8 instead of E.8.

C. Boundary Wall:

i. The four options of boundary wall with grill were presented, the option number 3 is accepted.