1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1689th meeting held on 25.01.2023 was discussed.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission accepted the Concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 12, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The building 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 Conceptually Suitable letter no: OL-09012327003 dated 18.01.2023. Based on the replies submitted and the 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 plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, 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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Inconsistencies have been observed in the submission. The plans, elevations, sections, 3d views do not match each other, thus giving incomplete & incorrect information about the proposed design scheme. Similarly, the guard house is shown in the 3d views but does not get reflected in the layout plan. The Commission observed that since the proposal is at the formal stage, the submission should be complete and the coordinated drawings (plans/elevations/sections/3D views (including night-time views)) should be submitted for the judicious consideration of the Commission.

b) The Commission observed that the proposal of this scale and usage cannot be studied in isolation i.e., it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities. Therefore, 3D views of the site shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings including road networks, and structures around the site, for a better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.

c) Also, the quality of elevations and sections provided is not appreciated (they are very basic), and 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.

d) The architectural elements/material, vertical green provisions etc., shown in the 3D views are found to be missing in the plans submitted. All such details including architectural elements, materials on the façade, sun shading mechanisms etc. shall also be shown on the plans along with other appropriate details. Similarly, detailed sections (including longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) shall be given.  Coordinated drawings (plans/elevations/section/3D views etc.) shall be submitted for a better understanding of the proposal.

e) The movement pattern within the site is not clearly understood, a combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plan from outside to the various parts of the building is to be submitted, to understand the movement (vehicular & pedestrian) pattern within the site better.

f) The Commission opines that while planning MLCP adequate provisions for essential facilities including waiting areas, toilets and drinking water facilities for the users should be ensured.  Also, the overall working mechanism (including the ticketing mechanism) of the MLCP be elucidated with necessary details to understand the overall functioning of the parking facility.

g) Signages to be provided in the complex to be designed appropriately. They need to be appropriately located to serve the purpose of signages and to ensure that they do not mar the aesthetics of the façade. A signage policy shall be adopted on the site to maintain uniformity and enable facade control.

h) The Commission observed that the proposed design scheme for the main gate and the boundary wall is not sufficiently detailed to be fully appreciated by the Commission.  The design of the gates & boundary wall has the greatest external public interface for the complex 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.

i) The submitted landscape plans lack clarity in explaining the landscape scheme. The sites’ landscaping is to be improved with appropriate treatment (Hardscape & Softscape). Where ever possible peripheral greenery to be maintained and need to be shown clearly in the drawings, and 3D views.

j) 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.

k) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning 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) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

3. 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.
4. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observation of the Commission and ensure submission complete and coordinated 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. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 25, 2021, and specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the proposal for NOC for Completion at its meeting held on September 08, 2022, and November 17, 2022, respectively, specific observations were given.
4. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the Completion stage was scrutinised along with previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No. OL-12112249016 dated 21.11.2022 and the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., North DMC in part ‘B’ and ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the observations/recommendations received, the revised proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised and the proposal for NOC for Completion is found to be accepted.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the proposal for the Upgradation of the District Centre at its meeting held on September 22, 2022, and June 23, 2022, specific observations were given.
3. The revised proposal for the Upgradation of the District Centre at Bhikaji Cama Place (Renovation of Plaza, Construction of shops, Toilet, Development works including Roads, Footpaths & Parking etc.) 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-20092222050 dated 27.09.2022. 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 plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, DG Set and exhaust pipe, 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 directly by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The water tanks and the utility equipment etc. provided on the office building shall be appropriately screened so as not to be visible from a distance and mar the visual and the urban aesthetics of the complex.

b) The Sustainability features (including solar panels) 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 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) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.