1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1687th meeting held on 12.01.2023 was discussed.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (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 building plan proposal for additions/alterations (internal changes on the ground floor, and proposed floors from the first to third floor above) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The open space between the mumty and shaft (kitchen) protruding above be covered with a pergola to bind this space and augment its visual impact.  

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 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.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the revised layout plan at its meeting held on March 04, 2015, and the building plans were approved at its meeting held on January 04, 2019, and specific observations were given.
3. The revised masterplan and building plan proposal (for Academic buildings (admin, academic, workshop, activity centre), residential buildings (faculty residences, hostel), ESS building etc.)  received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal has been received at the formal stage and the submission is not sufficiently documented (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) so much so that only one 3d view of each building block appears to have been submitted, and all necessary drawings (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) for the main admin block, activity centre, and ESS building are found to be missing in the submission.

b) The Commission opines that being a formal submission, all the buildings blocks should have been submitted with all sides 3D views (including birds' eye view, night-time views etc.), detailed elevations (from all sides), detailed sections (including longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well). Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

4. Overall, an incomplete submission (at the formal stage) has been submitted by the architect/proponent for consideration by the Commission which is not appreciated, and could not be examined judiciously due to its incompleteness.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observation of the Commission and ensure submission complete in all respect (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) be submitted for consideration of the Commission and furnish pointwise compliance & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (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 building plan proposal for additions/alterations (internal changes on the ground floor, and proposed floors from the first to third floor above) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, 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 plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, and solar panels 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 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 Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on January 05, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plans proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a room, toilet and balcony) 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-02012322002 dated 11.01.2023. 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 in terms of the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-02012322002 dated 11.01.2023 unsatisfactory compliances for the same have been made.

5. In view of the unsatisfactory compliances provided to the Commission, the proposal could not be appreciated by the Commission.
6. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observation 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 November 19, 2004, and the revised plans were approved in the meeting held on November 04, 2009. The Commission accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on March 31, 2010.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions/ alterations at its meeting held on December 04, 2020, specific observations were given.
4. The building plan proposal for regularisation (already built 4^th floor) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-08102022052 dated 21.10.2020, and replies submitted in response to the observations issued vide observation letter no: Temp/22(155)/2020-DUAC dated 20.04.2020 respectively. Based on the replies submitted and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for regularisation of an already built floor (fourth floor) it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for the Regularisation of an already built floor (fourth floor) only.

b) The Commission took note that no comment from the concerned local body i.e., DDA has been received, also provisions, as stipulated under clause 2.8 of the Unified Building Bye Laws 2016 (UBBL) for Delhi, were carefully considered by the Commission.

Clause 2.8:

“…. Regularisation:

…. any building or part thereof constructed unauthorisedly with or without obtaining the sanction of building plan and/or OCC, can be regularised, if the same is within the ambit of BBL and MPD provisions by paying requisite fees and charges as per Annexure III & Annexure IV, as per Form D-3……”

c) Taking into consideration the facts as enumerated above, the Commission examined that proposal for the Regularisation of an already built floor (fourth floor) purely on the basis of its impact on visual and urban aesthetics.

d) 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.

e) All service equipment, exposed rain water pipes, water tanks, 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.

Ms. Nivedita Pande, Member, DUAC recused herself during the consideration of the proposal.

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

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 August 23, 1996, and the revised building plans proposal for additions/alterations was approved at its meeting held on April 05, 2018.
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., DDA in Performa parts ‘B’ and part ‘C’. Based on the comments received from the concerned local body (DDA) and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal has been submitted for NOC for Completion. An appropriate number of photographs of the completed superstructure (for which NOC for completion is required) shall be provided with proper labelling/delineation and uncut/clear photographs from all sides (including parking, landscape areas, terrace etc.) to substantiate the actual work executed at the site.

b) From the submitted photographs provided, the rainwater pipes (RWP) are evidently visible on the façade, and also temporary covering is visible in some of the areas. The air-conditioners are also seen on the outer façade spoiling & marring the visual and the urban aesthetics of the area. The same shall be appropriately screened so that not to remain visible and spoil the façade.

c) All temporary coverings/extensions must be removed.

d) Approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall be superimposed on the plans/elevations/sections etc., over the actual built structure on the site, existing & proposed changes done in the design from the approval (by DUAC), to understand the extents of deviations made internally as well as external changes made with respect to the sanctioned plan.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided, the proposal for NOC for the completion plan could not be appreciated judiciously by the Commission.

5. 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 proposal was deferred.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the PWD-GNCTD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 16, 1993, specific observations were given. The layout and building plan proposal (hostels, staff quarters and the part academic complex) was approved in the meeting held on September 24, 1993, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission approved the building plan proposal (Academic block- 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B) at its meeting held on May 18, 2018, and specific observations were given.
4. The Commission approved the building plan proposal (addition of academic block behind block-6) at its meeting held on November 17, 2022, and specific observations were given.
5. The revised layout/ Masterplan and building plan proposal of remaining buildings (academic (lecture halls, admin, library, auditorium/seminar halls, shopping centre), residential ( hostels, housing (type 2, 3, 4, & 5), Vice chancellors residence, guest house, play school/creche), sports (indoor sports arena, Indoor pool & gym block, outdoor pool block, students activity & health care centre) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal has been received at the formal stage and the submission is not sufficiently documented i.e., plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc. for each block for which the proposal has been submitted are not provided. Each block should be appropriately delineated and annotated for a better understanding of the proposal.

b) The Commission opines that being a formal submission, all the buildings blocks should have been submitted with all sides 3D views (including birds' eye view, night-time views etc.), detailed elevations (from all sides), detailed sections (including longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well). Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

6. Overall, an incomplete submission (at the formal stage) has been submitted by the architect/proponent for consideration by the Commission which is not appreciated, and could not be examined judiciously due to its incompleteness.
7. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observation of the Commission and ensure submission complete in all respect (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) be submitted for consideration of the Commission and furnish pointwise compliance & reply.

Building plan proposal in respect of the Hospital building at Plot no. 3, at FC-30, Saket. (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 plans proposal at its meeting held on December 28, 2020, and January 04, 2019, respectively, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plans proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The project report of the design proposal was found to be missing in the conceptual submission, thereby the intent behind the whole design scheme is not understood as the design proposal for the hospital has been rejected twice, on previous occasions, by the Commission.

b) The Commission observed that the proposal is on a plot measuring 14000 sqm with 76.515 m front and 193.57 m depth of the plot. But the whole design scheme submitted along with the 3D views presented a very ambiguous picture. So much so that the areas beyond plot boundaries including municipal roads, and areas under the ownership of adjoining properties have been shown as part of the overall design scheme thereby representing an inaccurate site situation.

c) Also, since the proposal is at the conceptual stage, the Commission intended to examine the proposal in conjunction with the surrounding 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.

d) The 3D views have been provided which do not clearly indicate the required details. 3D views from all sides (including the terrace) of the design proposal should be elucidated with a sufficient number of self-explanatory annotated 3D views (including the porch, drop-off areas, triple-height atrium, ramps for basement, night views (to understand lighting mechanism), and birds' eye views etc.) from various better viewing angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations & materials used for a better understanding of the design proposal judiciously.

e) A variety of materials have been used on the external façade, and annotated 3D views with material applications shall be submitted for its judicious consideration by the Commission. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

f) It was observed that the provision of an MLCP block with a height of approx. 44.95 m has been taken but the 3D views of the same with appropriate details have not been elucidated. All sides annotated 3D views (including the terrace, nighttime views etc.) and other relevant details shall be submitted for the judicious review of the Commission.

g) 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).

h) The plumbing mechanism is to be appropriately elucidated. Exposed plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes etc. spoil and mar the aesthetics of the site and surroundings, a design to screen them with appropriate materials be submitted. Also, the area accommodating the DG set should be appropriately detailed along with DG exhaust pipes with a screening mechanism so as not to spoil & mar the aesthetics and presented with a suitable medium for the consideration of the Commission for the review of the Commission.

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) The design of the gates and adjoining structures have the greatest external public interface and will have a tremendous bearing on the overall public perception of the aesthetics of the complex, the same needs to be detailed for gate/grill detail/material applications coordinated with plans/elevations/sections/3D views (including night-time views) etc.

k) Installation of solar panels on the rooftop is maximised. The complex should aim to maximise energy efficiency and set an example for such future proposals. 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.

l) All service equipment, water tanks, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, 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.

4. Overall, an erroneous design scheme of the proposal has been submitted for the consideration of the Commission. The conceptual proposal could not be examined judiciously by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approval (formal/completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for addition/alteration at its meeting held on December 01, 2022, and January 12, 2023, respectively, specific observations were given.
4. The building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Double Stack parking provisions have been proposed 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) All parking requirements shall be as per applicable rules/regulations/guidelines etc.

c) 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.

d) 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.