1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1678th and 1679th (Extraordinary) meetings held on 17.11.2022 and 23.11.2022 respectively was discussed.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) 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 accepted the Concept of building plans proposal (demolition & reconstruction) at its meeting held on September 22, 2022, and specific observations were given.
5. The layout and building plan proposal (for 3B+G+11 floors) received (online) at the Formal stage were scrutinized along with previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Suitable letter no: OL-13092227045 dated 27.09.2022, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. 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.

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 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 point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on October 06, 2022, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-03102255060 dated 10.10.2022. 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 water tanks, 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.

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 Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on October 20, 2022, specific observations were given.
4. The revised 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 scrutinized along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-15102223066 dated 25.10.2022, and a discussion (online) was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the replies submitted, discussion (online) held, 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-15102223066 dated 25.10.2022 inadequate compliances for this have been given.

b. 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.

c. The Commission again reiterated 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 must be superimposed over the 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 including the materials to be used on the façade.

d. 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.

e. The food court areas have 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 strongly advised to make alternative parking arrangements (preferably a basement under the food court area) and the available open surface area to be utilized for the green area or alternately pedestrian use.

f. 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.

g. 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, due to insufficient information provided, the proposal could not be appreciated judiciously by the Commission.
6. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held in 1995. NOC for completion was accepted in the meeting held on August 24, 2005. The proposal for additions/alterations was approved in the meeting held on October 3, 2012.
3. The Commission did not accept the part NOC for Completion at its meeting held on July 14, 2022, and specific observations were given.
4. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion (Part-for the proposal for additions/alteration approved in the meeting held on October 3, 2012) received (online) at the Completion stage was scrutinized along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter No. OL-12072248007 dated 20.07.2022 and the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., DDA in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the observations/recommendations received 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-12072248007 dated 20.07.2022 inadequate compliances for this have been given.

b. The Commission did not appreciate that all its previous observations remain non-compliant. It is again reiterated that all temporary coverings/extensions must be removed, and the outdoor air-conditioner units visible on the façade spoiling the overall visual and the urban aesthetics of the complex must be screened appropriately.

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 the areas for which NOC for completion has been applied.

5. Due to non-compliance with its previous observations, the proposal for NOC for completion is not appreciated judiciously 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 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 + 8 floors) at its meeting held on March 31, 2017.
4. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on November 17, 2022, and on October 20, 2022, specific observations were given.
5. 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 scrutinized along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter No. OL-09112222066 dated 21.11.2022, and a detailed discussion (online) was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission related to non-compliances of its previous observations. Based on the revised submission made, and the discussion (online) held, the following observation is 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-09112222066 dated 21.11.2022 inadequate compliances for this have been given.

6. In view of the non-compliances of its previous observations, the proposal could not be examined judiciously by the Commission.
7. The architect is advised to adhere to all previous observations of 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 building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 11, 2011, and specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on November 17, 2022, and specific observations were given.
4. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinized along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-10112248016 dated 21.11.2022 and the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., DDA in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the replies submitted, observations/recommendations received and the revised submission made, the proposal for NOC for Completion is found to be accepted.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on November 09, 1979, and the NOC for completion was accepted at its meeting held on July 26, 1991, and specific observations were given.
3. The layout and building plan proposal (demolition & reconstruction) received (online) at the Formal stage was scrutinized and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal is situated at an important location in New Delhi and cannot be studied in isolation i.e., it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, annotated 3D views of the design proposal 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 design proposal being at the formal stage it should be elucidated with a sufficient number of self-explanatory annotated 3D views from all sides including public areas as well (including the porch, drop-off area for CM, entrance lobby, main entry, atrium, waiting areas, cafeteria, lobby areas, night views to understand lighting mechanism, and birds' eye views, etc.) with better viewing angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations & materials used for a better understanding of the design proposal judiciously.

c. The elevation is suggested to be relooked to provide greater thought to appropriate architectural elements art & architecture, materials, portraying the spirit of the region, culture, traditions, etc. including stone cladding details where required. The elevational features on the facade are not adequately detailed. It shall be submitted with proper detailing (including 3D views). Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

d. Dining, staff dining, and Rajasthani cafeteria facilities have been provided, but their capacity and furniture arrangements, etc. have not been indicated on the concerning plans, the same shall be elucidated with a solid waste management plan to show effective means of waste disposal.

e. The provision of air-conditioning units on the façade is not given in the 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.

f. The design of the gate and the boundary wall could have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex, the same needs to be detailed for gate/grill detail/material applications coordinated with plans/elevations/sections/3D views, etc.

g. A public art zoning plan is missing in the submission. It shall be ensured that the placement of all works of Art on the site is as per art & architecture, the rich cultural heritage of the city of Rajasthan, etc. Work of art of suitable scale, size, and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level (human eye) which is also visible from outside, to be installed in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

h. 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.

i. The area accommodating the DG set, AC plant, etc. shall be suitably screened, including DG exhaust pipes, using appropriate architectural mechanisms so as not to remain visible, and mar the aesthetics of the complex.

j. 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.

k. All water tanks, 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.

4. Overall, due to insufficient information provided, the proposal could not be appreciated judiciously by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The quality of submitted drawings is not appreciated by the Commission, scanned copies have been used which are not clearly elucidated & self-explanatory. The submission shall be in the appropriate medium as prescribed by the local body/byelaws, for clarity and a judicious understanding of the proposal.

b. The quality of 3D views is not appropriate. They are very sketchy and the scale, proportion, materials, etc. are not understood. Annotated 3D views of the proposed design scheme (including public interface areas, double height lobby, drop-off areas, canopy with materials, night time views to understand lighting arrangements) shall be superimposed on the existing superstructure along with the existing context of the surroundings, including road networks, structures around the site, for a better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, elevation of the façade with materials, etc.

c. It was observed that the requisite car parking requirements of the proposal have been accommodated on the surface. Alternative arrangements shall be made to relocate the surface car parking elsewhere (preferably a basement) and the freed-up spaces are put to judicious use including open greens, recreational spaces, etc., enhancing the visual, urban aesthetics of the area.

d. The Commission observed that the proposed building is part of a large campus with existing buildings in the vicinity, thus, the Commission suggested that the elevation needs to be appropriately modified with better architectural features (some elements could be in harmony with the context of the surroundings), elements, form, materials, etc. Overall aesthetics to be improved, and architectural elements to be simplified. It shall be submitted with proper detailing (including 3D views).

e. The design of the gate and the boundary wall could have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex, the same needs to be detailed for gate/grill detail/material applications coordinated with plans/elevations/sections/3D views, etc.

f. 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.

g. The area accommodating the DG set, DG exhaust pipes, etc. shall be suitably screened using appropriate architectural mechanisms so as not to remain visible, and mar the aesthetics of the complex.

h. 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.

i. All water tanks, 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. Overall, due to insufficient information provided, the proposal could not be appreciated judiciously by the Commission.
4. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

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

Proposal in respect of New Flyover at Savitri Cinema Intersection. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the architect (online) at the conceptual stage for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal was deferred.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approval (formal/completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (first to the fifth floor above an existing construction of 2B+G) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized and 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. Since no previous record of the approvals taken from the Commission is not found in the available record. Previous approvals taken (formal & completion) from the Commission shall be submitted.  

c. Though the architect has submitted the proposal for additions/alterations, from the submission, it is evident that the proposal appears to be for demolition and reconstruction, which needs to be relooked at.

d. 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. The scale, proportion, materials, etc. are not understood sufficiently. All additions/alterations must be superimposed over the built construction on the site including the road network, all services, parking areas, etc. with uncut photographs from all sides (including basements to substantiate the construction of double stack parking arrangements) for a better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer including the materials to be used on the façade.

e. The quality of 3D views is not appropriate. They are very sketchy and the scale, proportion, materials, etc. are not understood. Annotated 3D views of the proposed design scheme (including public interface areas, lobbies, lift lobby areas, drop-off areas, canopy with materials, pre-function areas, banquet areas, swimming pool areas, night time views to understand lighting arrangements) from various angles with better-rendered visuals. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, elevation of the façade with materials, etc.

f. The requisite parking arrangements made on the site are not understood clearly. All open surface parking be relocated to the basement and the freed-up spaces are used for greens. Also, 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.

g. The project is submitted at the Formal stage, therefore, an appropriate number of detailed sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) & elevations shall be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details, etc.  Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

h. Provisions for banquet hall, restaurants, coffee shops, staff cafeteria, etc. have been made but their capacity has not been indicated in the submission. These areas shall be detailed and elucidated with furniture arrangements to understand its working mechanism better, materials, 3D views, etc.  A plan needs to be provided which shows the servicing of the kitchen, along with a solid waste management plan to show effective means of waste disposal.

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

j. Submitted design scheme lack clarity in explaining the landscape scheme. The sites’ landscaping to be improved with appropriate treatment (Hardscape & Softscape) and needs to be shown clearly in the appropriate drawings, and 3D views.

k. The design of the gate and the boundary wall could have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex, the same needs to be detailed for gate/grill detail/material applications coordinated with plans/elevations/sections/3D views, etc.

l. 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.

m. Rooftop utilities are missing in the submission, these shall be identified and marked on the plans.  Roof-top utilities are to be shown in relevant drawings. The screening for the same shall also be mentioned and marked clearly in the plans/3D views. 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.

n. All water tanks, 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.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal could not be appreciated judiciously by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. It was observed that the proposal is at the formal stage and different materials (dholpur jaali, dholpur stone, cement concrete balusters, PVC jaali, etc.)  have been used on the façade, but the same has not been elucidated appropriately on the 3D views submitted. It appears to have the same materials applied all over, therefore giving an incorrect picture of the place.  It shall be revised with enhanced visuals for its judicious examination by the Commission.

b. Annotated 3D views of the proposed design scheme from various angles with better-rendered visuals are submitted. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, elevation of the façade with materials, 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, 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. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.