1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1696th meeting held on 16.03.2023 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 for addition/alterations (demolishing the existing auditorium and proposing an academic block (now denoted as an office building)) at its meeting held on June 25, 2021.
3. The revised building plan proposal for addition/alteration (addition of 2^nd floor, 3^rd floor, 4^th floor & 5^th floor over an existing office building comprising of S+G+01) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Approval Letter no.: OL-23062123022 dated 29.06.2021. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect (online) as some of the requisite requirements of the submission (elevations & sections) are found to be missing in the submission. Based on the submission made, incompleteness of the submission and unavailability of the architect to answer the queries of the Commission, 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) Earlier, while considering the demolishing the existing auditorium and proposing an academic block (now denoted as an office building)) at its meeting held on April 08, 2021, one of the observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-07042123009 dated 13.04.2021 related to accommodating requisite car parking requirements is as follows:

“…….The stilt area of the proposed facility can be used for common activities such as cafeteria, sit-outs etc. as it would be easily accessible for the users. The option of basement can be explored for accommodating the parking, currently proposed in the stilts….”

The Commission intended to keep free the open area so that freed-up open spaces can be put to judicious use for open permeable green spaces. However, the architect/proponent did not envisage the futuristic requirements of the project and confined the then-current car parking requirements (38 ECS) to the stilt area only. 

c) The Commission expressed its disappointment that the work on the site is still in progress (on the building it approved in 2021) and now after almost two years architect/proponent has submitted the proposal for the addition of another four (04) floors with an additional car parking requirement (69 ECS). In the absence, of a basement, all the required car parking requirements (current + proposed) have been accommodated on the available open green spaces in the proximity of the under-construction building which is not appreciated by the Commission. The project should have been envisaged considering the futuristic requirements.

d) The Commission opines that alternative parking options must be explored including a basement, MLCP or otherwise as deemed fit to accommodate all the requisite car parking requirements of the proposal (current+proposed) and the open spaces shall remain unobstructed.

e) Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

f) 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.

4. In view of the incompleteness of the proposal received at the formal stage, the proposal 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 ensure full submission (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) for the consideration of 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 building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission did not appreciate the proposed design scheme of the façade. The submitted elevations are suggested to be relooked as the façade seems to be cluttered i.e., too many design elements. Overall aesthetics to be improved, and architectural elements to be simplified. One or two alternative options shall be explored and resubmitted with appropriate details for the consideration of the Commission.

b) Materiality and texture of the façade including the colour scheme have not been provided by the architect which could spoil the visual and urban aesthetics of the area. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (from all sides) showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations including materials and the texture on the façade shall be provided for a better understanding of the proposal.

c) 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.

d) 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.

4. 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 building plan proposal (for the IOCL petrol pump) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Inconsistency has been observed in the submission received at the formal stage. Spaces for Air-filling and Pollution kiosks have been marked in the layout plan at the outgress of the petrol pump, but the pollution kiosk was found to be missing in the 3D views. The proposal received at the formal stage should have correlated, coordinated drawings for the judicious review of the Commission.  

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 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. In view of the inconsistencies involved in the current submission received at the formal stage, the proposal 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 ensure coordinated submission (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) for the consideration of 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 building proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal is at the formal stage and cropped 3D views from one side only have been provided. Being at the formal stage complete 3D views from all sides including the terrace, gate & boundary wall, guard room etc. shall be provided for the consideration of the Commission.

b) Basic elevations/sections have been submitted, the same need to be detailed clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms etc. The proposal being at the formal stage needs to submit an appropriate number of detailed sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. for a better understanding of the overall scheme.  Also, skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

c) All the 3D views, elevations, sections etc. shall be co-related, revised and re-submitted.

d) The design scheme of air-conditioning mechanism is not understood. Air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, provisions shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units, 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) 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.

f) 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.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage was not self-explanatory and it needs to be supplemented with an appropriate number of complete 3D views indicated with materials to be used on the façade for the consideration of 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. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 04, 2020.
3. The building plan proposal for addition/alteration received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC approval Letter no.: OL-28022055026 dated 05.03.2020. Based on the previous observations of the Commission 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) The Commission took note that the work at the site is in progress.

c) It was observed that the proposal has been submitted at the formal stage and incomplete documentation has been received (3D views, rear side elevation etc. are found to be missing).

d) An appropriate number of annotated 3D views from all sides including terrace, gate & boundary wall etc. indicating the material on the façade shall be submitted for the judicious consideration of the Commission.

e) Similarly, the basic section (half) has been submitted, the proposal being at the formal stage needs to submit an appropriate number of detailed sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) shall be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme 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.

f) The design scheme of air-conditioning mechanism is not understood. Air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, provisions shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units, 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.

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) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. Overall, the proposal is not self-explanatory and due to incompleteness, it 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 North 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 building plans proposal for additions/alterations (alterations in the ground floor and addition of basement along with 3 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the car lift is not appropriately located, it shall be located to have hindrance-free access all the time. It was suggested to convert one of the bedrooms adjacent to the front setback to a car lift.

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 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.

4. 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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on October 09, 2020.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Approval Letter no.: OL-06102024032 dated 16.10.2020 and the comments given by the concerned local body i.e., NDMC. Based on the previous observations of the Commission, comments received from the local body and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed that while forwarding the proposal to the Commission at the completion stage following observation/recommendations has been made in Performa Part-C (completion stage) by the concerned local body i.e., NDMC:

“…….observations/recommendations of the sanctioning authority while forwarding the matter to DUAC for consideration in the Performa Part-C of the Completion stage from serial no 1 to 4 indicates the following:

“…..NO..…”

The Commission considers the proposals based on the certification related to building bye-laws etc. furnished by the concerned local body. Taking into consideration the observations/recommendations made and forwarded by the concerned local body i.e., NDMC, the proposal could not be examined judiciously by the Commission.

b) The Commission observed that the proposal is for the NOC for Completion but photographs of the four ancillary blocks, pergolas (five in number) given at various places as landscaped elements, gate & boundary wall, terrace photographs (a lot of services, skylight, air-conditioning mechanism and solar panels etc. have been approved while approving the case at the formal stage) shall be submitted to substantiate its actual construction at the site for the judicious consideration of proposal received at Completion stage.

c) 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.

d) For a better understanding of the proposal side by side photographs ‘Before (submitted at the time of DUAC formal approval) and After (current actual built construction)’ of the constructed building blocks are provided.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided, the proposal for NOC for Completion 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 CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The layout and building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed presentation on the subject was given by the architect at Cisco Web Ex meetings (online) and explained salient features, and shared complete drawing/documentation including the work of public art being envisaged to the satisfaction of the Commission. Simultaneously, provided clarifications to all the queries of the Commission. Based on the detailed presentation given by the architect (online) and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The turning radius of the ramps proposed to access the basement shall be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

b) It was suggested that in case the entry to basement ramps needs to be covered in the future, it is suggested to envisage their design and related details at this stage in consonance with the aesthetics of the complex.

c) 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.

d) 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.

Layout and Building plans proposal in respect of extension NSUT West campus at Jaffarpur. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout proposal for ITI, Jaffarpur at its meeting held on January 22, 2003, specific observations were given and approved the building plans proposal in respect of the Co-educational Polytechnic at the existing Jaffarpur ITI Complex, Jaffarpur at its meeting held on March 12, 2003.
3. The layout and building plan proposal for extension of the existing NSUT west Campus, Jaffarpur received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal is part of a large campus with existing development in the vicinity. The Commission observed that the proposal cannot be studied in isolation i.e., it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, 3D views of the site (including aerial views, night-time views etc.) 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.

b) The photographs of the existing context have not been provided clearly to understand the existing situation in the right context.  An appropriate nos. of site photographs shall be provided to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides.

c) All sides elevations of the proposed building blocks are missing. Also, the skin sections (appear to be incorrect) and the section does not appropriately elucidate the design scheme. An appropriate number of detailed sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) shall be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme 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 site has varied usages, a combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plan from outside to the various parts of the buildings to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site.

e) The mechanism for air conditioning needs to be elucidated with appropriate details to understand its overall mechanism 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) Mechanism to screen the utility balconies from drying of cloths and dish antennas shall be elucidated with appropriate details so as not to mar the aesthetics of the facade.

g) 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.

h) 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 aesthetics of the façade.

i) Provisions have been made to accommodate 802 ECS car parking. The parking plan needs to be detailed, i.e., it needs to mark the location of no. of cars, car movement patterns, etc. for the current & the proposed parking with the bifurcation of two. Not addressing parking requirements adequately would spoil the overall visual, urban, environmental, and aesthetic quality.

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 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.

4. Overall, due to incompleteness & the submission is not self-explanatory, the Commission could not appreciate the overall submission judiciously, the same needs to be substantiated with appropriate detail to understand the proposed design scheme better.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission & ensure complete submission and furnish pointwise compliance & reply.

Building plans proposal in respect of Delhi Pollution Control Committee Headquarters at plot-5, Sector-25, Rohini. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 02, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Unsuitable letter no: OL-17022327011 dated 09.03.2023. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

b) 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.

Found conceptually suitable (not limited to these observations).

‘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.