Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1681st meeting held on 01.12.2022.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1681st meeting held on 01.12.2022 was discussed.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the RLDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2.  The Commission accepted the conceptual proposal for the Master Plan for Redevelopment of New Delhi Railway Station and its surrounding areas at its meeting held on November 03, 2021, specific observations were given.
3.  The Commission did not approve the proposal for the Master Plan for Redevelopment of New Delhi Railway Station at its meeting held on October 27, 2022, and November 24, 2022, respectively, specific observations were given.
4.  The proposal for the Master Plan for Redevelopment of New Delhi Railway Station received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: 67(2)/2022-DUAC, OL-04112267002 dated 28.11.2022. Based on the 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: 67(2)/2022-DUAC, OL-04112267002 dated 28.11.2022 no compliances for this have been given.

b. The Commission took note of a letter dated November 29, 2022, from the Executive Director (NDLS), RLDA in response to DUAC letter no: 67(2)/2022-DUAC, OL-04112267002 dated 28.11.2022. The extracts are as under:

“……. the proposal uploaded by RLDA through OPAAS is for the entire Master Plan area for Redevelopment of New Delhi Railway Station covering a few areas outside New Delhi Railway Station, for which NOCs from various authorities have been already obtained….”

c. The Commission also studies the contents of the letter from RLDA in conjunction with letter no: F. No-A-11013/1/2022-DD-II (E file No-9123145) dated 18.11.2022 received from the Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs (MoHUA), Government of India related to the redevelopment of New Delhi Railway Station which stated that:

“…...I am directed to refer to DUAC’s letter no: 35(1)/2022-DUAC dated 11.11.2022 and this Ministry’s letter of even no. dated 17.10.2022 on the subject mentioned above and to say that the hon’ble Minister while approving the proposal had categorically mentioned that approval is only in respect of development of New Delhi Railway Station.

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

d. In view of the above, the Commission opines that the proposal for the Master Plan for Redevelopment of New Delhi Railway Station received (online) at the formal stage from the concerned local body i.e., RLDA is not in agreement with the directions received from MoHUA, GOI. It is again reiterated that the proposal be modified in terms of directions issued by the MoHUA and resubmitted the same by limiting itself to the boundaries of the New Delhi Railway Station for its judicious consideration by the Commission.

e. Also, the proposal for surrounding areas of New Delhi Railway Station may be routed through the concerned local bodies in terms of section 12 of the DUAAC Act 1974.

f. In view of the lack of clarity provided on the proposal, the proposal in respect of the Master Plan for Redevelopment of New Delhi Railway Station 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 DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 17, 2020, and specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on November 10, 2022, and December 08, 2022, respectively 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 previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-29112248020 dated 14.12.2022 and comments given by the concerned local body i.e., DDA in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the replies submitted, comments received from the local body and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. To the extreme displeasure & disappointment of the Commission & total disregard for its previous observations as well as against the letter and spirit of the Ease of Doing Business (EoDB), the architect is submitting fudged submissions again & again so much so that this is the third consecutive submission in a row wherein fudged, graphically modified photographs and distorted data related to the proposal at the Completion stage have been submitted by altering the actual site conditions.

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 October 20, 2022, November 17, 2022, and December 01, 2022, respectively, 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 scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter No. OL-27112222070 dated 07.12.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

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

b. The 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.

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, 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.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (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 received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. Signages provided in the petrol pump 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 accepted.

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 CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal in respect of the Redevelopment of General Pool Residential Colony at Mohammadpur at its meeting held on May 15, 2019, and subsequently accepted the NOC for Completion (except MLCP) at its meeting held on November 24, 2022, specific observations were given.
3. The building plan proposal (for-Construction and providing a Multilevel Electro-Mechanical Car Parking System) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. Solar photovoltaic panels shall be suitably accommodated on the large terrace and help to reduce the carbon footprint. The same shall be appropriately screened so as not to mar the aesthetics. Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as 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) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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 Commission did not approve the design proposal for the Integrated transit corridor development & street network connectivity plan in respect of the provision of a Grade separator at Sarai Kale Khan along the ring road, signal-free movement between Modi Mill ROB and Nehru Place, and the provision of Grade separator at Savitri Cinema along Outer Ring Road at its meeting held on June 03, 2021, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the concept of Proposal of Flyover at Savitri Cinema Intersection at its meeting held on August 04, 2022, specific observations were given.
4. The revised design proposal in respect of the New Flyover at Savitri Cinema Intersection received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-31072227041 dated 10.08.2022. Based on the revised submission made, the following observation is to be complied with:

a. All observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-31072227041 dated 10.08.2022 ensures to comply in the subsequent submission (formal).

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 19, 2021, and specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on November 03, 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 previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-28102258039 dated 07.11.2022 and comments given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the comments received from the local body and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. It was observed that no reply on the previous observations of the Commission has been given by the architect/proponent.

b. From the actual site photographs provided by the architect/proponent, it is evident that work on the facade is still not finished. The proposal for completion should be sent only after the completion of all the works at the site including civil, landscape etc. so as not to mar the visual and the urban aesthetics of the area.

c. 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.

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

e. For a better understanding of the proposal side by side photographs ‘Before (submitted at the time of DUAC formal approval) and After (current actual built construction)’ of the constructed building blocks be provided.

5. 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.
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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on    December 11, 2020, and specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the Completion stage was scrutinised along with the comments given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the comments received from the local body and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. Cropped photographs of the proposal received at the completion stage have been provided which do not elucidate the condition of the completed structure better, needs to provide an appropriate nos. of uncut/clear photographs from all sides to substantiate actual work executed at the site including boundary wall, gate, parking, landscape, elevational façade, terrace areas to get in-depth clarity of the screening of services like solar panels, water tanks etc.

b. From the actual site photographs provided by the architect/proponent, it is evident that work on the site is still not finished. The proposal for completion should be sent only after the completion of all the works at the site including civil, landscape etc.

c. 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.

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

e. For a better understanding of the proposal side by side photographs ‘Before (submitted at the time of DUAC formal approval) and After (current actual built construction)’ of the constructed building blocks 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 compliance & 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 November 10, 2022, and specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-09112255069 dated 15.11.2022. Based on the previous observations given, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. It was observed that no reply on the previous observations of the Commission has been given by the architect/proponent.

b. While communicating the observations vide observation letter dated 15.11.2022, one of the specific observations was:

“……The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade thereby spoiling the visual, urban aesthetics. Innovative design provisions shall be made in the design itself to accommodate the outdoor air-conditioner units, and it shall be ensured that the pipes are appropriately screened so that they are not exposed on the outer façade and mar the aesthetics….”

But, in the revised design scheme presented before the Commission, exposed outdoor air-conditioners have been provided which are spoiling the visual and urban aesthetics of the area. The outdoor air-conditioners could be suitably accommodated on the terrace, the design scheme be accordingly revised and resubmitted for the consideration of the Commission.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the design 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 compliance & reply.