1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1692nd meeting held on 16.02.2023 was discussed.

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. But did not accept the proposal for NOC for completion at its meeting held on December 15, 2022, and specific observations were given.
3. 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 observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-15122258044 dated 21.12.2022 and comments given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the replies submitted, comments received from the local body and the revised submission made, the proposal for NOC for Completion is found to be accepted.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the Master plan in respect of Jamia Millia Islamia University at its meeting held on June 18, 2014.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal in respect of the Foreign Students Hostel at Jamia Millia Islamia, Okhla at its meeting held on August 11, 2022, specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal in respect of the Foreign Students Hostel at Jamia Millia Islamia, Okhla 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-04082255046 dated 17.08.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are 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-04082255046 dated 17.08.2022 unsatisfactory compliances for the same have been made.

b) The 3D views have been submitted without annotations thus making it difficult to comprehend the materials etc. on the façade, which could have a bearing on the visual, urban aesthetics of the complex. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (from all sides including the terrace) from various angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations and corresponding to proposal drawings be submitted for a better understanding of the proposal.

c) Also, the areas meant for surface parking (as shown in the layout plan) have been shown with grownup trees and vegetation etc. in the 3D views of the design proposal, thereby giving an incorrect portrayal of the site. All drawings (plans/elevations/sections/3D views) should be coordinated with each other and the corrected/coordinated submission shall be submitted for the consideration of the Commission.

d) In one of the replies to the previous observations, the architect has replied:

“……. the provision of air-conditioning is not proposed in the design scheme as it is generally not a primary requirement of hostellers….”

The Commission opines that it is understood that air-conditioning may not be the primary requirement of hostellers today, but being a hostel for foreign students, it can preplan for potential additions in future. As air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, the provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units, at this stage, so as not to mar the aesthetics. A scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material of screening for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views.

e) Also, in response to the observation made for making provisions for the statutory requisite car parking requirements on the surface only, the architect has replied that:

“…...alternative parking arrangements have not been proposed in the design scheme also there are already numerous surface parking provided in the overall campus itself and there is a multi-level parking at a distance of 250-300 m from the site which is enough for our parking requirements….”

The Commission insists that surface parking be avoided & the freed-up surface parking spaces shall be utilised for creating open green spaces. However, to consider the reply of the architect, detailed photographs, plans etc. of the existing multi-level parking nearby (as claimed by the architect) with its capacity etc., shall be submitted for the judicious consideration of the Commission.   

f) Response of the architect concerning waste disposal:

“…...Solid waste management plan will be used which is existing on overall campus site…”

To safeguard the effective means of waste disposal and substantiate the argument, the location of the existing solid waste management shall be submitted along with its updated site pictures for a better understanding of the Commission.

g) The location of the DG set and DG exhaust pipe with its screening mechanism appears to be missing, it was observed that the exposed DG Set & DG exhaust pipes spoil the visual & the urban aesthetics of the area. Therefore, they shall be elucidated with appropriate details, locations, and screening mechanisms for judicious consideration of the proposal.   

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 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.

5. In view of the unsatisfactory compliances made to the previous observations of the Commission, the proposal could not be appreciated appropriately 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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building proposal 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, 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 Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on October 13, 2022, and January 19, 2023, and on February 02, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The building plan 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-31012355010 dated 07.02.2023. 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, 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 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 plans proposal for additions/alterations (alterations from ground to 2^nd floor, addition of 3^rd floor over the existing G+2 floors) 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 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 North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the Master plan in respect of Delhi University at its meeting held on January 06, 2010, specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal in respect of the Institute of Eminence (IOE) and Auditorium at Plot no. 2, Delhi University North Campus received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the Commission intended to discuss (online) the design proposal with the architect but he was not available. Based on the submission made and the non-availability of the architect (online), the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal for a sports university is on a plot measuring 9.64 Acres of land area with three buildings (including an auditorium block of 425 capacity) of diverse forms and shapes.

b) The Commission observed that the proposal has been received at the formal stage but the proposed 3d views of the design proposal are not correctly documented & submitted. The Commission opines that the proposal of such scale and magnitude should have been provided with annotated 3D views from all sides (including public interface areas, drop-off areas, entrance plaza, terrace etc.) of each proposed building block with better-viewing angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations & materials used for a better understanding of the design proposal judiciously.

c) The Commission opines that being a formal submission, it shall be ensured that all buildings should have annotated 3D views (including birds' eye view, night-time views etc.) from all sides, detailed elevations (from all sides), detailed sections (including longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) for the better understanding of the design proposal.

d) The Commission observed that the current vehicular circulation in the site appears to be causing a lot of conflicting points (between inbound and outgress vehicles and pedestrians as well), the same shall be relooked at. A combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plans from outside to the various drop-off points is to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site better. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement.

e) The total requisite parking requirements of the proposal in 324 ECS and the size of the basements appear to be inadequate to accommodate so much parking. The architect/proponent can consider increasing its footprint to accommodate all required parking requirements in the basement effectively.

f) The turning radius of some of the ramps appears to be inadequate, the same shall be relooked at and made as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

g) The Commission observed that the proposal is at the formal stage but elevations of the design proposal appear to be missing in the submission. The elevations and sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site, auditorium, and both the building blocks of the Institute of Eminence as well) need to be detailed clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc.

h) A lot of waste (dry & wet waste, 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.

i) The mechanism for air conditioning is not understood, it needs to be detailed appropriately 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).

j) 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.

k) The design of the gates and adjoining structures have the greatest external public interface and will have a 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.

l) The areas housing the DG Set, DG exhaust pipes, transformers etc., be appropriately screened so as not to spoil the visual & the urban aesthetics of the complex and elucidated with sufficient details including screening of DG exhaust pipes.

m) The Commission opines that considering the scale and use of the project, the Installation of solar panels on the rooftop is maximised, and the complex should aim to maximise energy efficiency and set an example for such future proposals. The sustainability aspects should have been articulated better & presented through better techniques including overall water & electricity requirements and their consumption applying sustainability necessities. A detailed matrix in this regard shall be submitted for a better understanding & its judicious consideration by the Commission.

n) The submitted landscape plans lack clarity in explaining the landscape scheme. A lot of hard-paved surface areas have been planned across the site, leaving very fewer green spaces and may cause a heat island effect. The same shall be minimised and the sites’ landscaping is to be improved with appropriate treatment (Hardscape & Softscape).

o) 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.

p) All water tanks, 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.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage should have been complete, self-explanatory and sufficiently detailed, due to its incompleteness it could not be examined judiciously.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and submit a complete & coordinated submission (plans/elevations/sections/elevations/3D views etc.) and furnish a pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held (online) 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 PWD-GNCTD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the Masterplan 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 approved the building plan proposal (addition of academic block behind block-6) at its meeting held on November 17, 2022, respectively, and specific observations were given.
4. The Commission did not approve the revised layout/ masterplan and remaining buildings at its meeting held on January 25, 2023, 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 and dining block, 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 along with the replies submitted by the architect to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-23012361001 dated 31.01.2023, and a detailed presentation given by the architect (online) who provided intent, the background of the design scheme and provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the replies submitted, the discussion held (online) and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the design proposal is at the formal stage and in its replies to the earlier observations of the Commission, it has indicated the following:

“……. building submission to be done once approval of the revised master plan is obtained….”

However, the title of the design proposal submitted for the consideration of the Commission is as under:

“…...Revised Layout/Master plans proposal and Construction of Remaining Buildings in the Campus….”

Since the proposal is at the formal stage the title of the proposal is to be corrected and resubmitted for the consideration of the Commission.

b) In addition to the above, the Commission observed that the total area of the plot is 565966 sqm with a lot of existing functional buildings and other proposed buildings to be added (academic, auditorium, residential, sports, and other use buildings, future building blocks etc.) with a total student's strengths of 12000 students.

c) The architect has indicated to have made provisions of 5702 cars for the current & proposed requirements with a provision of approx. 50% is surface parking spread across the whole site. The Commission opines that these requisite surface parking requirements which not only spoil the visual & urban aesthetics of the area but also create a lot of hard paved surfaces creating a heat island effect. Considering envisaging fragmented basements, alternative parking arrangements shall be explored including spreading basement footprints under other proposed development and the freed-up spaces be put to judicious use including open landscaped permeable green spaces etc.

d) The campus is already functional, and the pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the site be elucidated appropriately with linkages from the nearest metro stations. A combined mobility circulation plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plans from outside to the various buildings is to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site better. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement.

e) The gates & boundary wall of the campus have the greatest external public interface and will have a bearing on the overall public perception of the aesthetics of the complex, being a functional campus, an appropriate number of photographs of the existing gate & boundary wall for better understanding of the existing built public interface.

f) The areas accommodating DG Sets, transformers, utility areas etc., be appropriately screened so as not to spoil the visual & urban aesthetics of the complex and elucidated with sufficient details including screening.

g) The Commission opines that considering the scale of the project, the provisions for the spaces for the installation of solar panels be maximised with the intent to maximise energy efficiency and set an example for such future proposals. The sustainability aspects of the campus (current + future) should be articulated thoughtfully including overall water & electricity requirements and their consumption applying sustainability necessities including rainwater harvesting, common effluent plant (for water) & solar panels (for electricity) etc. A detailed matrix in this regard shall be submitted for a better understanding & its judicious consideration by the Commission.

h) 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 planned & submitted.

i) The submitted landscape plans lack clarity in explaining the landscape scheme. A lot of hard-paved surface areas have been planned across the site, leaving very fewer green spaces and may cause a heat island effect. The same shall be minimised and the sites’ landscaping is to be improved with appropriate treatment (Hardscape & Softscape) including permeable green surfaces.

j) 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.

6. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage is not self-explanatory and sufficiently detailed, due to which it could not be examined judiciously by the Commission.
7. 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 May 17, 1996, and did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/ alterations at its meeting held on November 24, 2022, December 29, 2022, January 19, 2023, and February 16, 2023, respectively, 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-08022322021 dated 20.02.2023. 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-08022322021 dated 20.02.2023 unsatisfactory compliances for the same have been made. The Commission also took note that the proposal for additions/alterations has been rejected thrice in the past on a similar ground, the casual attitude of the architect in addressing these observations is not appreciated by the Commission.

c) Further, the Commission observed that while considering the proposal at its meeting held on December 12, 2022, the following observations were given:

“…...The mechanical (double stack parking) arrangements have been proposed at several places on the available open spaces including front set-backs, in front 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….”

  It was disappointing & dismay to the Commission, the architect/proponent has submitted the same design scheme (which had already been rejected by the Commission) for accommodating statutory parking requirements (current + proposed) for the consideration of the Commission, which is not appreciated.

d) Moreover, inconsistencies have been observed in the submission, two parking plans with different parking layouts have been submitted which do not coordinate with each other in terms of the layout & parking statement. The proposal at the formal stage needs to be coordinated with each other. All requisite parking provisions are to be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

4. Overall, due to unsatisfactory compliance with its earlier observations, the proposal for additions/alterations could not be examined judiciously by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and submit three alternative options of requisite parking requirements of the proposal (current + proposed) and furnish pointwise compliance & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission considered the building plans proposal at its meeting held on October 17, 2005, and specific observations were given.
3. The layout and building plan proposal for additions/alterations (upgradation of façade, internal changes, addition/alterations on GF, FF, SF, the extension of third floor & a proposed fourth floor on Plot A-4(Block-A), internal changes in Block B (Multiplex Block), plot P1-A Block C (addition of mechanical parking & surface parking) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized and a discussion (online) was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held (online), and the 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) Double-stack parking provisions have been made in the basement (Block A & C) 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.

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 water tanks, plumbing pipes, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, DG Sets, DG exhaust pipes, 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.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout/ Masterplan at its meeting held on June 04, 1986, specific observations were given.
3. The building plan proposal in respect of the Auditorium for NCERT at Aurobindo Marg 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 queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held (online), and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the plot for the auditorium (800 capacity) is part of a large campus with existing built construction in the vicinity. Further, it was also observed that the provisions for requisite parking requirements (as per applicable regulations) have been made on the surface only which not only spoils the visual & urban aesthetics of the area but also creates a lot of hard paved surfaces creating a heat island effect. The Commission strongly suggests making provisions for a basement and accommodating all the requisite parking requirements. The freed-up spaces are put to judicious use including open landscaped permeable green spaces etc.

b) The mechanism for air conditioning is not understood, it needs to be detailed appropriately 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).

c) The areas accommodating DG Sets, transformers, utility areas etc., be appropriately screened (including DG exhaust pipes) so as not to spoil the visual & urban aesthetics of the complex and elucidated with sufficient details including screening.

d) The campus is already functional, and the pedestrian and vehicular circulation around the proposed site be elucidated appropriately. A combined mobility circulation plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plans from outside to the various buildings is to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site better. It shall be indicated evidently with the segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement.

e) The Commission observed that for better understanding & functioning of the auditorium, an appropriate number of sections (longitudinal and cross-section) need to be submitted clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc.

f) 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.

g) A signage policy should be adopted on the site to maintain uniformity. They need to be appropriately located to ensure that they do not mar the visual & aesthetics of the façade.

h) Provisions for the installation of solar panels be exploited with the intent to maximise energy efficiency and reduce carbon footprint. 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 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) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage is not self-explanatory and sufficiently detailed, due to which it could not be examined 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 CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. An email from the Architect has been received requesting for withdrawal of the proposal.
3. The proposal was returned to the CPWD at the request of the Architect.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (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 building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized along with the replies submitted by the architect to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-29112262026 dated 07.12.2022, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the replies submitted, the discussion held (online), and the revised submission made, the following observations are 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-29112262026 dated 07.12.2022 unsatisfactory compliances for the same have been made.

b) While replying to one of the previous observations of the Commission related to provisions being made for a basement to accommodate requisite car parking requirements, the architect has indicated the following:

“……. Car parking in a basement couldn’t be accommodated in the budget allotted for the project. Parking shades with green canopies of creepers have been provided to enhance the visual aesthetics of the campus. In addition, previous pavers are proposed as flooring for car parking…...”

The matter was discussed with the architect (online) and Commission strongly insists that car parking provisions on the surface not only spoil the visual & urban aesthetics of the area but also create a lot of hard paved surfaces creating a heat island effect. It is, therefore, strongly recommended to make provisions for a basement and accommodate all the requisite parking requirements, utilities etc. The freed-up spaces are put to judicious use including open landscaped permeable green spaces 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 water tanks, 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.

4. Overall, due to unsatisfactory compliance with its earlier observations, the proposal could not be examined judiciously by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

Revised Building plan proposal for additions/alterations in respect of City Park Motel at Rohtak Road, Village Ghevra. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on November 20, 2019, and specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on October 20, 2022, and on December 01, 2022, specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plans proposal for additions/alterations (proposed third floor with guest rooms, new food court with toilet facilities (S + Ground floor), proposed restaurant veranda on GF, pre-function areas with toilet facilities adjacent to an existing banquet hall with pooja Vedi on GF, swimming pool with changing facilities on GF, party hall with stage & pre-function areas on the first floor, soak pit, septic tanks, pump rooms in the basement, pergolas on the façade, toilets with ATM facility, feature wall near the main entrance) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-26112223075 dated 07.12.2022, 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 replies submitted, discussion (online) held, and 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) While replying to one of its previous observations, the architect has provided a basement under the proposed food court, which could accommodate only 52 ECS. But, the total requisite car parking requirements of the site is 261 ECS, the site still has a lot of fragmented open car parking spoiling the visual & urban aesthetics of the complex, and simultaneously creating a lot of hard paved surfaces. It is, therefore, the architect is advised to explore some other alternative car parking options including increasing the footprint of the basement, provisions of double/triple stack parking, and creating an additional basement to maximise accommodating requisite car parking requirements. The freed-up spaces are put to judicious use including open landscaped permeable green spaces etc.

c) The quality of elevations/sections provided could not be appreciated, it needs to be provided with clarity.  Also, an appropriate number of sections (longitudinal and cross-section) and skin sections need to be submitted clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc.

d) A combined mobility circulation plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plans from outside is to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site better. It shall be indicated evidently with the segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement.

e) The mechanism for air conditioning is not understood, it needs to be detailed appropriately 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).

f) The areas accommodating DG Sets, transformers, utility areas etc., be appropriately screened (including DG exhaust pipes) so as not to spoil the visual & urban aesthetics of the complex and elucidated with sufficient details including screening.

g) Provisions for the installation of solar panels be exploited with the intent to maximise energy efficiency and reduce carbon footprint. 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) All water tanks, plumbing pipes, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, DG Sets, DG exhaust pipes, 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.

5. Overall, due to unsatisfactory compliance with its earlier observations, the proposal could not be examined judiciously by the Commission.
6. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and prepare some alternative options to maximise accommodating requisite car parking requirements and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

Building plan proposal for Delhi Pollution Control Committee Headquarters at plot-5, Sec-25, Rohini. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect at Cisco Web Ex meetings (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held (online) and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Some night-time 3D views shall be added to understand the lighting mechanism judiciously.

b) The mechanism for air conditioning is not understood, it needs to be detailed appropriately 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).

c) The areas accommodating DG Sets, transformers, utility areas etc., be appropriately screened (including DG exhaust pipes) so as not to spoil the visual & urban aesthetics of the complex and elucidated with sufficient details including screening.

d) Toilets have been added on the outer façade of the fourth floor but their plumbing mechanism is not clear, the same need to be detailed and ensured that no plumbing pipe shall remain visible and spoil the visual & aesthetics of the façade.  

e) A large dome with pergolas has been envisaged on top of the atrium above on the terrace, to examine their likely impact on the visual & urban aesthetics, the same shall be elucidated appropriately including material, form, shape, fixing and maintenance aspects as well.

f) 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.

g) A signage policy should be adopted on the site to maintain uniformity. They need to be appropriately located to ensure that they do not mar the visual & aesthetics of the façade.

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, service equipment, DG set, DG exhaust 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) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

Revised Layout and Building Plans for addition/alteration in respect of Farmer’s CGHS Society at Plot No. 08, Sector-13, Rohini. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 20, 1985. No record of the NOC for Completion taken was found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The Commission did not approve the proposal for additions/alterations (extension of kitchen and balcony) at its meeting held on March 10, 2022, and did not accept the concept of the proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on July 21, 2022, September 08, 2022, and February 02, 2023, respectively, specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (extension of kitchen and balcony) 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-30012327006 dated 07.02.2023. 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 the two alternative options to accommodate requisite car parking have been submitted for the consideration of the Commission, but inconsistent 3D views have been submitted which do not give the correct situation of the site, the submission shall be corrected and the coordinated submission (plans/elevations/sections/elevations/3D views etc.) shall be submitted for the consideration of the Commission.  

c) All parking requirements must be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines.

d) 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.

e) 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.

5. In view of the inconsistencies, the proposal at the conceptual stage could not be examined judiciously by the Commission.
6. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

Layout and Building plans proposal in respect of Group Housing (Noble Arya) at Plot no. Pkt. 2(A), Sector-32, Pocket-2, Rohini. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized, following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission understands that the proposal is at the conceptual stage but the design scheme is neither self-explanatory nor appropriate. The Commission intended to examine the proposal in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, annotated 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.

b) Also, the quality of 3d views is not appropriate. They are very sketchy and the scale, proportion, materials on the façade etc. are not understood. Annotated 3D views clearly specifying the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. All sides of annotated 3D views with better viewing angles (including areas covering ramps to the basement, podium, drop-of areas, public interface areas, birds-eye views and night-time views (to understand the lighting mechanism better)) shall be submitted for its judicious consideration. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

c) Elevations/sections appear to be missing in the submission. Elevations from all sides are submitted. Also, an appropriate number of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) from end to end of the proposed design scheme be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. 

d) The podium area shall be sufficiently elucidated with appropriate details to understand its design scheme with longitudinal & cross sections.

e) The design of the gate and the boundary wall could 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.

f) A combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plan from outside to the various blocks to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site. Long-term/short-term parking for the visitors, taxi drop-off points, parking spaces, holding areas etc. be indicated in the parking/ site plan.

g) The balconies need to be screened appropriately along with the provision of screening of drying clothes. Innovative architectural features and materials shall screen dish antennas on the balconies.

h) Air-conditioning mechanism of the building is not clear, and provisions for outdoor air-conditioning units on the façade are not given in the proposal. The air-conditioners would be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, the provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units, at this stage, so as not to mar the aesthetics. A scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material of screening for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views.

i) The design scheme to screen the DG set and its exhaust pipes shall be elucidated appropriately with detailed drawings/3D views/other relevant details etc. using suitable architectural mechanisms so as not to remain visible, and mar the aesthetics of the complex.

j) A solid waste management plan needs to be submitted which shows the location, storage etc. for treatment/waste disposal. The details of the same shall be provided with appropriate drawings.

k) Public art zoning plan is ensured in the clubhouse, a work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level (human eye) which is also visible from outside, to be installed in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

l)Provisions of the public toilet etc. shall be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc. and its detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views, etc.) shall be submitted for the consideration of the Commission as these elements could have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex.

m) 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.

n) All plumbing pipes, outdoor air-conditioning units, service equipment, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, 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.

3. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal could not be appreciated fully by the Commission.
4. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

Layout and Building plan 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.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (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 Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on December 29, 2022, specific observations were given.
4. 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+5 floors) 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-24122227058 dated 03.01.2023, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the replies submitted, the discussion held (online) 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-24122227058 dated 03.01.2023 unsatisfactory compliances for the same have been made.

c) The Commission observed that the submission is at the formal stage but the overall quality of the submission is not appropriate. The elevations/sections provided do not give an adequate understanding of the design scheme. Detailed elevations and an appropriate number of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) from end to end of the proposed design scheme be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. 

d) While replying to one of its previous observations, the architect has provided a basement under the proposed building block which could accommodate only 70 ECS. But, the total requisite car parking requirements of the site is 302 ECS, the site still has a lot of fragmented open car parking spoiling the visual & urban aesthetics of the complex, and simultaneously creating a lot of hard paved surfaces. The architect is, accordingly, advised to explore some other alternative (two-three) car parking options to maximise accommodating requisite car parking requirements. The freed-up spaces are put to judicious use including open landscaped permeable green spaces etc.

e) An appropriate number of photographs of the existing basement shall be provided to understand its current and likely future use to accommodate additional surface parking. All parking requirements must be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines.

f) Provisions of the public toilet etc. shall be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc. and its detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views, etc.) shall be submitted for the consideration of the Commission as these elements could have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex.

g) A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) is supposed to be generated in the motel, and a detailed solid waste management plan along with its location on the site be submitted. In case, if, it is existed an appropriate number of photographs be provided to understand it’s working.

h) 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.

i) All plumbing pipes, outdoor air-conditioning units, service equipment, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, 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.

5. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal 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.

Building plan proposal in respect of Residence at 4464 (7/12), Ansari Road, Daryaganj.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (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.
3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and 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) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

b) 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.

Completion plan proposal in respect of Smog Tower Site, ISBT Anand Vihar, New Delhi.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the East DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on December 04, 2020, and on January 29, 2021, specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the Completion stage was scrutinised along with the comments of the concerned local body i.e., East DMC in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was noted by the Commission that the proposal for Smog Tower, ISBT Anand Vihar, New Delhi has been built at the site without formal approval taken from the Commission.

b) The Commission observed that the proposal is for the NOC for Completion and only a few cropped photographs of the smog tower have been provided. It is evident from the layout that an office & ESS is also part of the complex, but their photographs are found to be missing from the submission.

c) The proposal being at the Completion stage needs to provide uncut/clear photographs from all sides of the Smog tower, office, ESS etc. to substantiate the actual work executed at the site including boundary wall, gate, parking, landscape, and screening of services etc.

d) It was observed that a container, temporary structure, and loose construction material lying scattered on the site shall be removed from the site.

e) Also, the Completion drawings are found to be missing in the submission The proposal being at Completion stage need to be complete in all respect including plans/elevations/sections etc.

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.