Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1683rd meeting held on 15.12.2022.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1683rd meeting held on 15.12.2022 was discussed.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. Originally, the Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on January 07, 2005. Subsequently, in 2006, the DDA forwarded the revised scheme which was considered at Commission's meeting held on December 15, 2006.  At that time, the Commission had opined that the original proposal was better in comparison to the revised one.  Since the building was in an advanced stage of construction, it had been decided to return the proposal to DDA with some observations.
3. Later, the Commission did not accept the proposal for NOC for Completion at its meetings held on June 12, 2009, and July 29, 2009, respectively, specific observations were given.
4. The building plan proposal for the additions/alterations (addition of three more floors (7^th, 8^th & 9^th) above an existing building of 3B+G+5) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the observations as indicated above at para 2 & 3 above, following observations are to be complied with:

a) The architect has envisaged providing double stack parking provisions in the basements to fulfil requisite (current+proposed) parking requirements, but being the existing basements no photographs of the same has been provided to understand the existing situation better. Also, existing parking and parking from additional FAR (proposed) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with the bifurcation of two.

b) The proposal is for additions/alterations to the existing building. The additions shall be superimposed on the existing built construction with proper annotations specifying materials to be used and corresponding to proposal drawings, to be submitted to ensure clarity of the scheme and its judicious considerations.

c) The architect has claimed in his report that the DG Set and the Solar panels will be installed, but the existing arrangements & the proposed installations have not been shown (including DG exhaust pipes) to understand its implications on the visual & urban aesthetics better.

d) The mechanism for air conditioning needs to be detailed i.e., location, areas of inflow/outflow in indoor areas and the appropriate treatments used to conceal/screen the air-conditioning system. Also, it shall be ensured that there is no leakage from the AC unit causing deterioration of spaces (indoor and outdoor). The same shall be appropriately elucidated with sufficient documentation to understand the fulfilment of its current & proposed requirements.

e) 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.

f) The location of the DG Set, DG exhaust pipes etc. should be provided with a screening mechanism. All service equipment, plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, water tanks, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, air-conditioning 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) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

5. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal for additions/alterations 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 (2B+LG+UG+2 floors) at its meeting held on July 04, 2005, and specific observations were given. The Commission accepted the proposal for NOC for Completion at its meeting held on January 14, 2009.
3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (additions to existing LG+UG+2 floors, proposed third floor and MLCP) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion (online) was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the observations of the Commission and showed complete presentation/documentation related to the proposal. Based on the discussion held, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The quality of 3d views is not appropriate and not appreciated by the Commission. They are very sketchy and the scale, proportion, materials etc. are not understood. The 3D views shall be enhanced with better viewing angles and visuals.

b) The Commission observed that the location of MLCP is overly prominent with no efforts made in the proposal to sufficiently integrate it internally with the main building including managing the sense of arrival and entry. Conflict-free movement of vehicles, passengers, and drivers, including self-driving owners should be efficiently envisaged and be presented appropriately. Further, the aesthetics of the vertical surfaces of the MLCP can be made more visually and/or environmentally more appealing (eg. Clad in photovoltaic, include plants, creepers, and climbers in design).

c) Also, the green top provided on top of the MLCP is suggested to be made accessible to the users of the mall.

d) All commercial kitchen exhaust and service entry and garbage disposal should be designed and shown without conflict in diner experience.  The chimney exit outside should clearly be shown.

e) All requisite parking requirements shall be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

f) 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.

g) 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) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal for additions/alterations 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 North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on December 01, 2022, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-01122223077 dated 07.12.2022. 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 the NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal (for Type-V, Type VI and Community facilities) at its meeting held on January 18, 2017, and accepted the NOC for completion for Tower Type-VI (basement, stilt+ 09 floors) at its meeting held on August 12, 2021.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for completion plan proposal at its meeting held on September 22, 2022, specific observations were given.
4. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion (part- for Type-V and Community facility block) received (online) at the Completion stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-20092250009 dated 27.09.2022 and the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., NDMC in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma.
5. The Commission observed that the proposal is NOC for Completion for Type-V and Community facility block but the uncut photographs of the Community block (including its basement, work of art etc.) have not been provided.
6. Based on the replies submitted, observations/recommendations received, the submission made, and in absence of the photographs of the Community facility block provided, the proposal for NOC for Completion of the type-V tower only is accepted.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the revised layout plan in respect of Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) at its meeting held on July 25, 2012. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for an administrative block at its meeting held on June 09, 2022, and April 28, 2022, respectively, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal (for the administrative block) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-01062262018 dated 15.06.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) All requisite parking requirements shall be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

b) 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.

c) All service equipment, water tanks, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, 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) as 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 plans proposal at its meeting held on May 17, 1996, and did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on November 24, 2022, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (balconies, extension of drawing rooms & kitchen, and double stack parking) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-17112222069 dated 28.11.2022. 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) The formal proposal is for extensive additions/alterations on an existing superstructure but the same has not been elucidated appropriately. Accordingly, it was desired that the 3D views of the proposed additions envisaged shall be superimposed on the existing superstructure for a judicious understanding of the design proposal.

c) The mechanical (double stack parking) arrangements have been proposed at several places on the available open spaces including front set-backs, infront of stilts, greens etc., so much so that it reaches the balconies of the DU’s on the first floor, to achieve requisite parking requirements of the site. The Commission did not appreciate the same and observed that these arrangements have severely impacted the visual, and urban aesthetics of the area. Alternative arrangements shall be made to achieve the requisite parking requirements.

d) All requisite parking requirements shall be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

e) All encroachments/extensions/corrugated sheets etc. visible evidently on the facade shall be removed.

f) 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.

g) All service equipment, water tanks, outdoor air-conditioning units, rainwater pipes, 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.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal for additions/alterations 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 DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal was withdrawn by the architect vide his email dated December 29, 2022.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on July 26, 2017.
3. The Commission approved the revised building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on March 27, 2019.
4. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations for the up-gradation of 2 nos. of flats from Type D I-33 & 34 to Type C-II (G+1floor) at Rabindra Nagar received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observation is to be complied with:

a) All service equipment, water tanks, outdoor air-conditioning units, rainwater pipes 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.

Building plans proposal in respect of Motel Building on Khasra No. 554, 555, 571/1, 577/2/1, 578/1/1, 578/2/1, 591, 592/1, 592/2, 593/1, 593/2, 565 Min, 577/1/1, 580/1, 580/2, 581, 571/2, 577/1/2, 577/2/2, 578/1/2, 578/2/2, 578/4 at Village Satbari. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of the approvals (formal & Completion) taken was found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The layout and building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The attention of the Commission was drawn to the various provisions as stipulated under the prevailing Master Plan for Delhi 2021 related to Motels etc. enumerated as under:

“……Motels (with sanctioned plans as on 07-02-2007 or whose proposal of Motel has been acceded to, 3{(including all such proposal of motels which were in process of examination or matter challenged in the court of law or having approval in files from DDA or 1[ concerned municipal body] or not acceded to due to enforcement of MPD-2021 on 07.02.2007 are also eligible for sanction)}, which are in Commercial Areas or proposed Facility Corridor in Zonal Development Plans and Other use Zones) …..”

b) Taking into consideration the facts brought to the notice of the Commission, it was, accordingly, decided to request the architect/ proponent to furnish all the details related to the previous sanction/NOC for the completion plan of the proposal before 2007, if any, and any other information deemed fit, along with existing site conditions including drawings and updated photographs, existing tree details etc., only then the proposal at the conceptual stage shall be reviewed by the Commission.

Revised Building plan proposal in respect of Samrat Cinema Building at Shakurpur, opposite Britania biscuit factory, Ring Road, Shakurpur. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal (formal) at its meeting held on November 22, 2017.
3. The Commission approved the revised building plan proposal (formal) (for 2Basement + stilts + Ground + 5 floors) at its meeting held on March 21, 2018.
4. The Commission did not accept the concept of the revised building plan proposal at its meeting held on November 03, 2022, specific observations were given.
5. The revised building plan proposal (for 2 Basement + Ground + 6 floors) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-20102227049 dated 07.11.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that in terms of the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-20102227049 dated 07.11.2022 unsatisfactory compliances for the same have been made.

Layout and Building plans proposal for addition/alterations in respect of Palm Green Motel at Khasra no.21/16, 21/17, 21/18, 21/19 Min, 21/20, 21/23, 21/24, 21/25 Min, 21/30 Min Situated at Village Bakoli. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approvals (formal/completion) taken from the Commission has been found in the available record of the Commission. However, some scanned drawings for the regularisation taken from MCD were submitted.
3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of some areas in an  existing building comprising of B+G+1 floors, and a new building block comprising of B+G+8 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observation is be complied with:

a) The plot boundaries are not understood clearly, the same shall be elucidated & demarcated properly with the appropriate detailing etc.

b) The proposal for additions/alterations annotated 3D views (including night-time views etc.) of the proposed design scheme shall be superimposed on the existing superstructure along with the existing context of the surroundings, including road networks, and structures around the site, for a better understanding of the additions in the actual environment to make it clearer.

c) Uncut photographs of the existing site development (including area having DG sets, DG exhaust pipes etc.) shall be provided for its impact on the proposed design scheme and judicious consideration of the overall proposal.

d) An appropriate number of site sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) shall be cut through (especially the areas having a double basement, utilities, swimming pool, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes etc.) highlighting the addition/alteration and submitted to understand the connections between existing and the proposed design scheme. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

e) The provision of proposed parking is not clearly understood. Surface parking shall be relocated elsewhere and the free parking spaces shall be utilised for ensuring green areas. It would help improve the visual, and urban aesthetics of the complex. The requisite parking arrangements need to be clearly indicated in appropriate plans and other parking details, location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. in each parking lot.

f) Also, the architect has envisaged providing double stack parking provisions in the proposed basement to fulfil requisite (current + proposed) parking requirements. Existing parking and parking from additional FAR (proposed) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with a bifurcation of two.

g) Provision of a restaurant has been provided but its seating capacity is not given. Its connections and arrangements with the kitchen are not understood. To understand its functioning better, the same shall be elucidated with the seating capacity, arrangements, and the proposal to dispose of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) supposed to be generated along with a detailed solid waste management plan proposal.

h) The mechanism for air conditioning needs to be detailed i.e., location, areas of inflow/outflow in indoor areas and the appropriate treatments used to conceal/screen the air-conditioning system. Also, it shall be ensured that there is no leakage from the AC unit causing deterioration of spaces (indoor and outdoor). The same shall be appropriately elucidated with sufficient documentation to understand the fulfilment of its current & proposed requirements.

i) A lot of spaces are available on the terrace the same shall be utilised to install solar panels. 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.

j) All service equipment, water tanks, outdoor air-conditioning units, rainwater pipes, 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.

4. Overall, the design scheme is not self-explanatory. Due to insufficient information provided, the proposal for additions/alterations 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.

Proposal in respect of new flyover at Modi Mill, Outer ring road (Between Modi Mill ROB to Kalkaji flyover). (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the proposal for integrated transit corridor development & street network connectivity plan at its meeting held on June 03, 2021, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the concept of a Proposal of Flyover at Modi Mill, Outer ring road (Between Modi Mill ROB to Kalkaji flyover) at its meeting held on November 03, 2022, specific observations were given.
4. The revised proposal in respect of the new flyover at Modi Mill, Outer ring road (Between Modi Mill ROB to Kalkaji flyover) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-26102227050 dated 07.11.2022. Based on the previous observations given and the submission made, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) All observations/suggestions given by the Commission vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-26102227050 dated 07.11.2022 is compulsory to be compliant in the formal submission.

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 at its meeting held on October 12, 2001. NOC for completion in respect of the administrative block was accepted in the meeting held on October 12, 2009.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion (auditorium cum business centre (Block C & D), future block (Block E) and ESS) at its meeting held on January 13, 2022, and specific observations were given.
4. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion (Auditorium cum business centre (Block C & D), future block (Block E) received (online) at the Completion stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-06012258001 dated 18.01.2022 and the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the observations/recommendations received and the revised submission made, the proposal for NOC for Completion is accepted.

The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting the confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.