Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1671st meeting held on 29.09.2022 respectively.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1671st meeting held on 29.09.2022 respectively was discussed.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on December 15, 2006, and the NOC for completion was accepted at its meeting held on March 30, 2009.

3. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (for the seventh floor only) at its meeting held on October 22, 2020.

4. The building plan proposal for NOC for completion (Part-for seventh floor only) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the proforma ‘C’ received from the concerned local body i.e., South DMC. Based on the proforma received and the submission made, the proposal for NOC for completion for the seventh floor was only accepted.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on February 12, 2020, and specific observations were given.

3. The revised proposal for the petrol pump received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. Signages provided must comply with the applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

b. Four options for public artwork were presented, the option no-1 was found to be more appropriate.

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, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of 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 approved the layout plan proposal at its meeting held on June 18, 2014, and the building plan proposal was approved at its meeting held on January 13, 2016.

3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on August 18, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion 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-16082258020 dated 22.08.2022 and the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in part ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the replies submitted, comments received in part ‘C’ Proforma, and the submission made, the proposal for NOC for completion is accepted.  

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

2. The Commission approved the layout plan proposal at its meeting held on June 18, 2014, specific observations were given, and the building plan proposal for teachers' housing house no-19 was approved in the meeting held on January 13, 2016.

3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on August 18, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion 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-16082258017 dated 22.08.2022, observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in part ‘C’ Proforma, and a detailed discussion (online) held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the replies submitted, comments received in part ‘C’ Proforma, a discussion held (online), and the submission made, the proposal for NOC for completion is accepted.  

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

2. The Commission approved the layout plan proposal at its meeting held on June 18, 2014, specific observations were given, and the building plan proposal for teachers' housing house no-21 was approved in the meeting held on January 13, 2016.

3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on August 18, 2022 and specific observations were given.

4. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion 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-16082258016 dated 22.08.2022, and observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in part ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the replies submitted, comments received in part ‘C’ Proforma, and the submission made, the proposal for NOC for completion is accepted.  

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

2. The Commission approved the layout plan proposal at its meeting held on June 18, 2014, specific observations were given, and the building plan proposal for teachers' housing house no-22 was approved in the meeting held on January 13, 2016.

3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on August 18, 2022, and specific observations were given.

4. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion 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-16082258015 dated 22.08.2022 and observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in part ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the replies submitted, comments received in part ‘C’ Proforma, and the submission made, the proposal for NOC for completion is accepted.  

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

2. The Commission approved the layout plan proposal at its meeting held on June 18, 2014, specific observations were given, and the building plan proposal was approved at its meeting held on January 13, 2016.

3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on August 18, 2022, and specific observations were given.

4. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion 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-16082258019 dated 22.08.2022 and observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in part ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the replies submitted, comments received in part ‘C’ Proforma, and the submission made, the proposal for NOC for completion is accepted.  

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

2. The Commission approved the layout plan proposal at its meeting held on June 18, 2014, specific observations were given, and the building plan proposal was approved in the meeting held on February 11, 2016.

3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on August 18, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion 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-16082258018 dated 22.08.2022 and observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in part ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the replies submitted, comments received in part ‘C’ Proforma, and the submission made, the proposal for NOC for completion is accepted.  

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 (B+G+3) in respect of 100 bedded general hospital at RHTC, Najafgarh at its meeting held on November 20, 2019, 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., South DMC in part ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the comments received in part ‘C’ Proforma and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. 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) must be provided with proper labelling/delineation and uncut/clear photographs, including night-time photographs of the facade from all sides to substantiate the actual work executed at the site including basement, boundary wall, gate, parking, landscape, elevational façade, and screening of services etc.

b. Also, approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall be superimposed on the plans/elevations/sections etc., over the 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. Parking provisions are to be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

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

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 the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.

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

a. Signages provided must comply with the applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

b. Three options for public artwork were presented, the option no-1 was found to be more appropriate.

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, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of 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 proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion (online) was held with the architect at 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 the 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. The Commission observed that the proposal is for a Commercial Complex with lots of retail outlets which would invite both pedestrians and vehicular movement in and around the site. A combined mobility plan showing a seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plan is to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site.

c. Also, requisite parking arrangements for the site have been accommodated on the surface. The Commission opines that considering the building's use as a commercial complex, it is advisable to make alternative parking arrangements (preferably a basement) and the available open surface area to be utilised for public use.

d. 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.

e. All plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of 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 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 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 Commission did not accept the NOC for completion (part- for plot A) at its meeting held on September 29, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. The revised proposal for NOC for completion (part-for plot A) received (online) at the completion 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-16092248011 dated 03.10.2022, comments given by the concerned local body i.e., DDA, and a detailed discussion (online) held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the replies submitted, comments received from the local body, a discussion held (online), and revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. It was observed that in terms of the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observations letter no: OL-16092248011 dated 03.10.2022 inadequate compliances for this have been given.

b. The architect did not answer convincingly to the query related to not providing a basement with mechanical parking to accommodate the requisite parking requirements as approved by the Commission at the formal stage.

c. During a discussion with the architect (online), the architect was unable to elucidate the functioning of the loading/unloading areas, and vehicular movement especially large-size truck trailers with car parking on the surface all around the site. Considering the building's use as a warehouse, large-size trailers would require a clear, wide road network to move through the complex for activities including loading/unloading. From the submitted proposal, it is observed that some parts of the site would not be easily accessible by the trailer due to narrow widths, less turning radius, surface car parking etc.

d. Thus, it was suggested to prepare an actual video of the site with the movement of the truck trailer (in actual size and scale), parking of cars along with locations of the unloading/loading platform to be provided to understand the seamless movement of the vehicles within the site.

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 to the observations given above by the Commission.

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 Commission did not approve the building plans proposal (2B+G+4) at its meeting held on September 29, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. The revised building plans proposal (for 2B+G+4) 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-21092222051 dated 03.10.2022, 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, DG sets, 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.

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 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. Not much clarity is given on the 3D views submitted. An appropriate number of annotated 3D views including birds-eye views, and night-time views (to understand the lighting mechanism better) must be provided with clarity on the materials used on the façade.

b. Since the proposal falls in the Old Delhi area, the Commission intended to examine the proposal with actual context. Therefore, 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.

c. The plumbing mechanism is not understood, toilets & kitchen have been provided without shafts. The plumbing pipes etc., must be appropriately screened to ensure they do not mar the aesthetics of the façade.

d. The parking arrangements have not been shown. Moreover, the stilt area has been provided without structural arrangements, the same needs to be revised and resubmitted.

e. The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, the provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units, so as not to mar the aesthetics. A scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material of screening for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views.

f. 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.

g. All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of 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. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal could not be appreciated fully by the Commission.

4. 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.