Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1672nd meeting held on 06.10.2022 respectively.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1672nd meeting held on 06.10.2022 respectively was discussed.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal (3B+G+6 floors) in its meeting held on November 22, 2007. Earlier, the submission made by the architect/proponent for additions/alterations, in the years 2010 (3B+G+7 floors) & 2014 (3B+G+8 floors), was returned vide DUAC letter no: 22(16)/2010-DUAC dated March 09, 2010, and 22(23)/2014-DUAC dated December 01, 2014, respectively due to its incompleteness.

3. The Commission did not approve the proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on October 06, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. The revised building plans proposal for additions/alterations (replacement of façade material on upper two floors from cement board to ACP in beige & grey colour, provision of a 2.0 m wide staircase up to the third floor as per fire requirements, an additional area of 492.69 sqm. on the ground floor with a terrace garden on the first floor, provision of a public toilet under the Swachh Bharat Mission) 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-05102256005 dated 10.10.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. 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.

b. All requisite parking provisions must be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

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, DG sets, DG exhaust 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 North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on November 20, 2019, and specific observations were given.

3. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations (proposed third floor with guest rooms, new food court with toilet facilities (S+ground floor), proposed restaurant veranda on GF, pre-function areas with toilet facilities adjacent to an existing banquet hall with pooja Vedi on GF, swimming pool with changing facilities on GF, party hall with stage & pre-function areas on the first floor, soak pit, septic tanks, pump rooms in the basement, pergolas on the façade, toilets with ATM facility, feature wall near the main entrance) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal is for large-scale additions/alterations to the existing built construction and the architect is not able to elucidate them satisfactorily. Also, the quality of 3d views is not appropriate for a proposal received at the formal stage. The scale, proportion, materials etc. are not understood sufficiently. All additions/alterations are to be appropriately rendered and annotated 3D views (including food courts, and public interface areas) from various angles including for all the proposed areas for which the proposal has been submitted with birds-eye views, and night-time views (to understand the lighting mechanism better) specifying the materials to be used on the façade must be superimposed over the actual built construction on the site including the road network, all services, parking areas etc. with uncut photographs from all sides for a better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.

b. Also, cropped photographs of the built construction have been provided which are inadequate to understand the overall actual site conditions. An appropriate number of annotated site photographs including basement areas etc., substantiated with markings on the layout plan for correlation, clearly showing the existing site conditions/existing built construction on the site for better understanding.

c. The front area with six numbers of sculptures and feature walls etc. must be detailed and presented with an appropriate number of 3D views with lighting arrangements.

d. Also, the quality of the elevations and sections provided is not appreciated, need to be detailed and clearly show 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.

e. The requisite parking arrangements made on the site are not understood clearly, especially with food courts in the front area. The details of the existing number of car parks + additional parking provided are not given in the submission. The existing parking and the parking from the additional FAR (proposed) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with a bifurcation of two.

f. The Commission observed that the food court area has been surrounded by surface parking all-around with a few under-stilt areas without consideration of the pedestrians. Since the area where the food court is envisaged is quite large, the Commission opines that considering the building use, it is strongly advised to make alternative parking arrangements (preferably a basement under the food court area) and the available open surface area to be utilised for preferably green area or alternately pedestrian use.

g. Four new food courts have been proposed, but the capacity of the same is not indicated. A plan needs to be provided which shows the furniture layout, capacity, servicing of the kitchen, loading and unloading areas for the raw materials, storage facilities etc. along with a solid waste management plan to show effective means of waste disposal (dry & wet food item waste etc.).

h. Also, air-conditioning mechanism of the food courts and the new additions to the main building is not clear. Similarly, the location of DG sets &DG Exhaust pipes is marked on the plans to feed both the existing building and the proposed food courts with a screening mechanism to screen the DG Set and its exhaust pipes. The same needs to be detailed & elucidated comprehensively with the screening mechanism so as not to mar the aesthetics.

i. It was observed that the location of the public toilet 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 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. Signages provided must comply with the applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc. and be submitted for the consideration of the Commission.

k. It has been observed that a large chunk of space is available on the rooftop of the new food courts, and main building but the same has not been utilised appropriately for the installation of solar panels above. Solar photovoltaic panels shall be suitably accommodated in the design so as not to mar the aesthetics and help to reduce the carbon footprint. Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

l. All water tanks, plumbing pipes, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, DG Sets, DG exhaust pipes etc. must 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.

4. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory. The proposal submitted for the formal stage needs to be complete and comprehensive. In absence of sufficient information provided by the architect, the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission.

5. The architect is advised to revise the submission adhering to all the above observations given by the Commission and submit a complete revised submission (with complete drawings/documentation etc.) for its consideration and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 29, 2016, and did not accept the proposal for NOC for completion at its meeting held on August 04, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-28072249007 dated 10.08.2022 and observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., North DMC in part ‘C’ Proforma. The Commission intended to discuss (online) the issues related to not compliances with its previous observations but the architect was not available. Based on the observations/ recommendations received, in absence of discussion (online), and the 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-28072249007 dated 10.08.2022 inadequate compliances for this have been given.

b. It is again reiterated that an appropriate nos. of uncut/clear photographs (all sides) to substantiate the actual work executed at the site including a basement and other interior areas (common public areas, restaurants, food courts, auditorium, public sitting areas), rooftop utilities, DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc. to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings.

c. The proposal being at the Completion stage needs to provide 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.

d. 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 concerning the sanctioned plan.

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

5. The architect is advised to submit the completion plan proposal for NOC with an appropriate number of uncut photographs of the built construction site including the basement and other interior areas (common public areas, restaurants, food courts, auditorium, public sitting areas), rooftop utilities, DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc.

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 South 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 (online) who replied 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 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 building proposal is situated in Old Delhi (Darya Ganj area) the façade of the building looks very garish and is also not contextual to the surroundings i.e., does not match the heritage character of Old Delhi. Thus, the Commission suggested that the elevation needs to be redesigned with better architectural features (some elements could be in harmony with the context of the surroundings), elements, form, materials etc. by exploring the possibility of using natural materials similar to the character of Old Delhi.

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 plumbing pipes, service equipment, 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.

3. It was suggested to prepare three-four options for the elevational façade using various architectural elements, materials, texture, forms, finishes etc. matching the heritage character of Shahjahanabad, and submit the same at the conceptual stage first for examination by the Commission.

4. Considering the facts enumerated above, the architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of 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 plan proposal at its meeting held on July 23, 2018, specific observations were given. The Commission did not accept the concept of the building plan proposal for phase-I (as shown in the submission as phase-I) at its meetings held on February 10, 2022, and April 07, 2022, respectively, specific observations were given.

3. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for phase II at its meeting held on July 28, 2022, and specific observations were given.

4. No previous record of the approval (formal) taken from the Commission has been found in the available record of the Commission.

5. The building plan proposal 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-27072255044 dated 01.08.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission took note that the proposal had already been considered at its meeting held on February 10, 2022, and detailed very specific observations on the design scheme had been given & communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-18012227007 dated 16.02.2022. But in total disregard to its observations and to the displeasure of the Commission, the construction work (on the rejected design scheme) is in full swing at the site.

b. Further, while submitting its project report the architect has given references to the commercial & hotel buildings which is not appreciated.

c. The Commission again reiterated its earlier observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-18012227007 dated 16.02.2022 and strongly advised the architect to adhere to the same and concluded that it has no further comments to offer.  

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. 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 plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, outdoor 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.

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 October 06, 2022, and specific observations were given.

4. The revised 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-29092222053 dated 10.10.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission 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. 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, water tanks, outdoor 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.

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 the following observations are to be complied with:

a. Signages provided must comply with the 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 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 CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 15, 2019.

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., CPWD in part ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the observations/ recommendations received and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal is at the completion stage and cropped photographs of the built construction have been submitted which do not clearly indicate the required details. 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. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides to comprehend the proposal.

b. While comparing the photographs of the elevation façade (at the time of formal approval) and the built construction, deviations have been noticed in terms of form, material specifications, finishes etc. The Commission opines that due thought had been given by the Commission while approving the design scheme (at the formal stage) in terms of visual & urban aesthetics of the area, materials, finishes, architectural elements, façade, etc. but the façade has been modified without taking its prior approvals, needs clarification.

c. It was also observed that two MLCPs were proposed (at the time of formal approval) to accommodate the requisite car parking requirements of the proposal but the same appears to have not been built by the proponent and needs clarifications as to how the current car parking requirements of the site be met.

d. 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.

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

f. 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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on November 27, 2019, and specific observations were given.

3. The Commission approved the revised building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 17, 2022, and specific observations were given.

4. The building plan 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., NDMC in part ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the observations/ recommendations received and the submission made, the proposal for NOC for completion was found acceptable.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal (hospital block-A-3B+G+7; Nurse hostel: B+G+6; Dormitory: B+G+5; Mortuary: B+G+1; Dr Residence: B+G+6, and Guest house) at its meeting held on November 18, 2009.

3. The Commission approved the revised building plans proposal (hospital:3B+G+8floors) at its meeting held on March 31, 2017.

4. The revised building plans proposal for additions/alterations (for the addition of two floors (9^th & 10^th floor over existing hospital Building B+G+8 floors, proposed new Hospital Block (3B+G+1 floor) and Utility Block (3B+G floor)) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The quality of 3d views is not appropriate for a proposal received at the formal stage. The scale, proportion, materials etc. are not understood satisfactorily. All additions/alterations are to be superimposed over the built construction on the site and must be supplemented (including the road network, all services, parking areas etc.) with uncut photographs from all sides for a better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.

b. The Commission observed that since proposed additions/alterations and the proposed new block etc., are part of a large campus, and the architect is not able to elucidate them satisfactorily, therefore, it cannot be examined in isolation i.e., it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities for a better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer. All additions must be superimposed over the built construction to understand the proposal for additions/alterations judiciously.

c. Also, cropped photographs of the built construction have been provided which are insufficient to understand the overall actual site conditions. An appropriate number of annotated site photographs including basement areas etc., substantiated with markings on the layout plan for correlation, clearly showing the existing site conditions/existing built construction on the site for better understanding.

d. An appropriate number of duly rendered annotated 3D views (including public interface areas) from various angles for which the proposal has been submitted with birds-eye views, and night-time views (to understand the lighting mechanism better) specifying the materials to be used on the façade must be supplemented for a better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.

e. The building plan proposal is for additions/alterations to the existing building. It is suggested that the new construction should be in harmony with the old building in terms of the elevation/façade/material/specifications etc. so as not to mar the aesthetics.

f. Overall site planning of the site has to be made self-explanatory i.e., the movement and circulation in the site, connections from outside the site etc. to understand the functioning of the hospital complex. The submitted proposal lacks a guided movement plan.

g. 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 for a better understanding of the overall scheme clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc., to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

h. The details of the existing number of car parks + additional parking provided are not given in the submission, thereby not providing clear information as to how the additional parking will be addressed. The existing parking and the parking from the additional FAR (proposed) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with a bifurcation of two. Not addressing the parking requirements would severely impact the overall aesthetic, environmental, and visual quality of the hospital complex.

i. A combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plan from outside to the various parts of the buildings to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site.

j. Signages provided must comply with the applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc. and be submitted for the consideration of the Commission.

k.  It has been observed that a large chunk of space is available on the rooftops the same has not been utilised appropriately for the installation of solar panels above. Solar photovoltaic panels shall be suitably accommodated in the design and help to reduce the carbon footprint. Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

l. All water tanks, plumbing pipes, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, DG Sets, DG exhaust pipes etc. must 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.

5. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory. The proposal submitted for the formal stage needs to be complete, comprehensive, and 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 revise the submission adhering to all the above observations given by the Commission and submit a complete revised submission (with complete drawings/plans/elevations/sections/3d views/ documentation etc.) for its consideration and furnish a 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 did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on September 29, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. The revised building plan proposal in respect of the Commercial building at Asset LP-1B-02, Delhi Aerocity (Gateway District) IGI Airport 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-12092265007 dated 03.10.2022. 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 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.

Building plans proposal for Additions/alterations in respect of the Motel building at Khasra no. 30/17, 30/24, 39/4/1/2 at Village Samalkha. (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.

Building plans proposal in respect of Scouts & their training & Cultural Centre at 3/7, Jogabai, Near Escort Hospital. (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. Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, Government of India vide their letter no: F. No-A-11013/1/2022-DD-II (E file No-9123145) dated 17.10.2022 has indicated the following:

“….I am directed to refer to DUAC’s letter no: 35(1)/2022-DUAC dated 25.01.2022 and this Ministry’s letter of even no. dated 22.07.2022 on the subject mentioned above.

2. The Ministry has reviewed the request of RLDA in the light of importance of redevelopment of New Delhi Railway Station, which is time bound and prestigious project. In order to facilitate expeditious approvals for this important project, it has been decided that DUAC may accept proposals directly from RLDA for its development plans through its OPAAS only in respect of development of New Delhi Railway Station.

3. It is reiterated that this approval is only in respect of development of New Delhi Railway Station.

4. This issues with the approval of Hon’ble Minister (HUA)……”

2. Accordingly, a draft of the memorandum was placed before the Commission for its review and approval. The Commission took note of the content of the letter issued by the Ministry and the draft memorandum placed before it for consideration and decided to approve the same.  

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

2. The Commission did not approve the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 26, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The Layout and Building plan proposal (including reconstruction of collapsed heritage structure) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect on the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-19052223030 dated 01.06.2022. Based on the replies submitted, and submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The top (coping) of the parapet wall be of stone with an inward slope to avoid a streaking of façade with water to spoil the façade. The same treatment must be ensured for the boundary wall with proper DPC as well.

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 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.

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

2. The building plans proposal for the 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. 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 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