Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1684th meeting held on 22.12.2022.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1684th meeting held on 22.12.2022 was discussed.

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 07, 2022, specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal in respect of Hospital Staff Accommodation received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-02072255040 dated 08.07.2022, and a detailed discussion (online) was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the revised submission made, and the discussion held (online) with the architect, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The location of the site was not understood clearly, it was suggested to superimpose its location & site and surroundings on google Maps with proper annotations for clarity.

b) A variety of materials have been used on the external façade, annotated 3D views (including night-time to understand lighting mechanism better) with material applications shall be submitted for its judicious consideration by the Commission.

c) It was observed that windows on the topmost floor do not have the provision of a sunshade etc. for protection from sun, rain, and extreme weather conditions, the same shall be ensured with appropriate architectural elements.

d) Air-conditioning mechanism of the building is not clear, the same shall be elucidated with its location, and the appropriate treatments used for its concealment & screening. Also, it shall be ensured that there is no leakage from the AC units causing deterioration of spaces (indoor and outdoor).

e) The discrepancy has been observed in the submission, the architect in its project report has indicated the following:

“……the terrace is provided with solar panels which contribute to environmental considerations…..”

But the same is not reflected in the submitted 3D views, terrace plan etc. The proposal being at the formal stage needs to be correlated with plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc. The same shall be revised accordingly and coordinated submission (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) shall be submitted for the judicious consideration of the Commission.

f) Large external glass glazing has been provided over the staircase, it shall be better elucidated with construction details including glass specifications, fixing details, maintenance mechanism etc.

g) 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.

h) The location of the DG Set, DG exhaust pipes etc. shall be provided. 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 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 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 approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 02, 1981. No previous record of approval (Completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a Golden Jubilee block (A), Canteen & Class Room block (B)) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion (online) was held with the architect who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission made, and the discussion (online) held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed 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 Commission observed that the proposal cannot be studied in isolation i.e. being part of a large campus with so many existing development, it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding building blocks, and facilities, therefore, annotated 3D views (specifying material to be used on the facade) 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.

c) The Commission observed that the proposal has been submitted at the formal stage with the addition of a Golden Jubilee block (A), Canteen & Class Room block (B) but only one 3D view of the proposed design scheme has been provided. It was suggested to submit annotated 3D views of the blocks (A, B) from all sides with better viewing angles (including the terrace, public interface areas, night-time views etc.) for judicious considerations.

d) The quality of plans, elevations and sections provided is not appreciated (they are very basic), need to be detailed 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.

e) The parking plan was found to be missing in the submission. The architect has indicated in their report for making a provision of 436 no car parking (existing+proposed) but the same has not been shown in the respective plans. The parking plan needs to be detailed, i.e., it needs to mark the location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. in each parking lot. Existing parking and the parking from additional FAR (proposed) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with a bifurcation of two.

f) Additional blocks are proposed in an existing school with a lot of parking provisions (436 nos), a combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian (student) and vehicular movement plan across the campus from outside, to understand the movement pattern within the site.

g) The Commission observed the presence of four (04) access gates to the school campus, it needs to understand the functioning & use of each access gate in terms of pedestrian and vehicular (especially school bus) movement, the same shall be elucidated with appropriate details.

h) Air-conditioning mechanism of the proposed buildings is not understood, the same shall be elucidated with appropriate mechanisms for its screening. The existing building façade shows exposed outdoor air conditioners spoiling the visual and the urban aesthetics of the area. At least in the proposed design scheme the same shall be addressed and screened adequately.

i) The roof surfaces shall be utilised to their optimum by installing solar panels which would help reduce carbon footprint. Also, 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 plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner 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) as 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 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 Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on February 27, 2003, and subsequently accepted the NOC for completion (basement, ground+ 03 floors) at its meeting held on October 07, 2009.
3. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations (for the addition of two floors (4^th & 5^th floor over an existing building comprising of B+G+3 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion (online) was held with the architect (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission made, and the discussion (online) held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed 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 Commission observed that cropped photographs of the existing superstructure & site development have been given, for a better understanding of the existing situation in & around the site, uncut photographs of the same (including the existing basement, terrace etc.) shall be provided to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings.

c) The provision of the requisite car parking arrangements (current+proposed) is not understood clearly. The current use of the existing basement is for parking and storage. An appropriate number of photographs of the basement shall be provided to understand the parking requirements better. All parking arrangements shall be as per applicable rules/regulations/guidelines etc.

d) The proposal (formal) has been submitted for the addition of two more floors above the existing superstructure. A lot of live/dead load is being added to the existing building. The structure shall be designed so that it can withstand weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes etc. and can withstand the additional load.

e) Air-conditioning mechanism of the building is not understood, the same shall be elucidated considering the current and the futuristic requirements of the proposed design scheme with appropriate detailing.

f) The roof surfaces shall be utilised to their optimum by installing solar panels which would help reduce carbon footprint. Also, 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, water tanks, 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) as 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 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 Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 09, 2000. Later, the revised building plan proposal was approved at its meeting held on May 31, 2001, specific observations were given. The proposal for NOC for Completion was accepted in the meeting held on May 08, 2006.
3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a room, toilet and balcony) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, 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 proposal is for the additions/alterations to existing building blocks. The same has not been elucidated appropriately. The quality of the submission appears to be very ordinary. The same shall be brought to the acceptable level for the consideration of the Commission.

c) The drawings showing existing & proposed changes should be superimposed on the existing structure to highlight the proposed modifications clearly 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.

d) The architect has indicated to have provided 299.98 ECS in the open area, stilts and an existing basement (under the existing community hall). But the photographs of the existing basement have not been provided to understand the extent of its current capacity & parking situation, the same shall be provided from various angles. The Commission opines that not addressing requisite parking requirements would severely impact the overall aesthetic, environmental, and visual quality of the complex/area.

e) All requisite parking arrangements shall be as per applicable rules/regulations/norms etc.

f) All balconies should have appropriate provisions for rainwater pipes (RWP) with screening mechanisms to avoid spoiling the visual and aesthetics of the façade.

g) The proposal is for additions/alterations a lot of live/dead load is being added to the existing building inhabited by the people. The proposed structure shall be designed so that it can withstand weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes etc. and can withstand the additional load.

h) 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.

i) All water tanks, plumbing pipes, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. must 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 submission is not elucidated appropriately and the quality of the submission appears to be very ordinary. The same shall be brought to the acceptable level with sufficient details and clarity for the judicious consideration of 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 accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on November 14, 2002, and approved the proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on May 07, 2018, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on December 08, 2022, and December 22, 2022, respectively, specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plans proposal for additions/alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-20122222075 dated 28.12.2022. 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 Commission observed that while not approving the proposal at its meeting held on December 22, 2022, very detailed & specific observations were communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-20122222075 dated 28.12.2022 unsatisfactory compliances have been made.

c) The Commission took note that the construction work on the site is in progress.

d) The proposal is for the additions/alterations to existing building blocks. The same has not been elucidated appropriately. The quality of the submission appears to be very ordinary. The same shall be brought to the acceptable level for the consideration of the Commission.

e) The drawings showing existing & proposed changes should be superimposed on the existing structure to highlight the proposed modifications clearly 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.

f) The Commission opines that the provisions of double stack parking arrangements made all over the site (especially in the front setback area) spoil the visual and the urban aesthetics of the complex. It was observed that at various places the proposed height of the double stack parking is touching the balconies of some of the DU’s and may cause safety hazards/challenges to the residents, therefore not accepted in the current form.

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

h) All temporary coverings/extensions must be removed.

i) All balconies should have appropriate provisions for rainwater pipes (RWP) with screening mechanisms to avoid spoiling the visual and aesthetics of the façade.

j) The proposal is for additions/alterations a lot of live/dead load is being added to the existing building inhabited by the people. The proposed structure shall be designed so that it can withstand weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes etc. and can withstand the additional load.

k) 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.

5. Overall, the submission is not elucidated appropriately and the quality of the submission appears to be very ordinary. The same shall be brought to an acceptable level with sufficient details and clarity for the judicious consideration of 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 did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on October 13, 2022, specific observations were given.
3. The revised proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-07102222057 dated 18.10.2022, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the replies submitted, the revised submission made, and the discussion (online) held, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) Inconsistencies have been observed in the revised submission made, the 3D views do not match with the plans submitted for consideration by the Commission. Since the proposal is at the formal stage, coordinated drawings (plans/elevations/section/3D views etc.) shall be submitted for the judicious consideration of the Commission.

4. Overall, due to inconsistencies involved in the submission made at the formal stage, it is returned to the concerned local body.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

Building plan proposal in respect of Sports Hostel for School Boys & Girls, Pitampura. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on December 28, 2020, and on March 09, 2019, specific observations were given. The concept of the proposal was also not accepted in the meeting held on November 06, 2020, and on August 14, 2020, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-18122023050 dated 31.12.2020, and a detailed discussion (online) was held with the architect (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the replies submitted, the revised submission made, and the discussion held (online), the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the requisite car parking provisions have been made on the surface only. So much so that in the front set-back double-stack parking provisions have been made. The Commission opines that creating double-stack parking arrangements in the front setback facing the main road would spoil the visual & the urban aesthetics of the area. It was, accordingly, suggested to make alternative arrangements by creating basements and the freed-up spaces shall be used judiciously (green landscaped spaces).  

b) The architect was suggested to prepare and submit three-four alternatives of the requisite car parking arrangements for consideration by the Commission.

c) The design scheme presented to screen the outdoor air-conditioners appears to be not comprehensible. The same shall be elucidated in a detailed manner (detailed drawings/elevations/sections/3D views etc.), as outdoor air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade and mar the aesthetics.

d) The design scheme for the pergola envisaged between the gymnasium and the girl's hostel shall be made to be in harmony with the existing architectural form, and materials used for the main building for ensuring coherency.   

e) The area accommodating the DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc. shall also be detailed with appropriate architectural mechanisms to screen the same so as not to remain visible and mar the aesthetics of the complex.

f) The utilities, solar panels etc. shown in the terrace plan shall also be shown in the 3D views. The corrected 3D views shall be supplemented with night-time visuals of the complex so as well to understand the lighting mechanism better.

g) Signages shall be such provided that they do not mar the visual & urban aesthetics of the façade. A signage policy (as per rules/regulations/guidelines etc.) shall be adopted to maintain uniformity across the complex.

h) Dining facilities have been provided in both the boys & girls hostels, but their capacity and the functional furniture layout are not submitted to understand their functioning judiciously, the same shall be elucidated with a solid waste management plan for the waste disposal (dry/wet food waste etc.).

i) The design scheme for the gate & boundary wall is not understood appropriately. The design of the gate and the boundary wall would have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex; thus, it needs to be detailed sufficiently (including 3D views (night time as well), plans, elevations, sections etc.) and complete in all respect shall be provided including gate/grill detail, material applications etc. for the consideration of the Commission.

j) All service equipment, 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.

k) The 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.

4. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

Building plan proposal in respect of the New Building at Todapur for Functioning of Traffic Offices. (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 accept the concept of the proposal at its meetings held on December 02, 2021, March 03, 2022, and June 02, 2022, respectively, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Unsuitable letter no: OL-31052227036 dated 08.06.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The porches proposed over entries shall be of such size to provide appropriate protection from harsh weather conditions like rain, sun etc. and have a proper drop-off.

b) The 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.

‘The conceptual suitability is only with reference to the mandate of the Commission. However, it would be reassessed at the formal stage based on the 20-point criteria as available on the DUAC website.  It would not be a substitute for formal approval of the proposal referred through the concerned local body in terms of section 12 of the DUAC Act, 1973.

Building Plan proposal in respect of Residential Building on Plot No. 32, Block-171, Sunder Nagar. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on December 15, 2022 and on November 10, 2022, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-15122255078 dated 21.12.2022. Based on the replies submitted, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The 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 service equipment, 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) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

‘The conceptual suitability is only with reference to the mandate of the Commission. However, it would be reassessed at the formal stage based on the 20-point criteria as available on the DUAC website.  It would not be a substitute for formal approval of the proposal referred through the concerned local body in terms of section 12 of the DUAC Act, 1973.

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