1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1697th meeting held on 23.03.2023 was discussed.

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 received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Cropped photograph of the existing site has been submitted which does not clearly elucidate the existing site conditions. Uncut photographs of the site from all sides shall be provided.

b) Materiality provided on the façade appears to be not harmonious with each other, materials provided on the façade, door, windows, railing etc. all different they shall be such to be in harmony with each other (combination of Red sand Stone, beige colour, dhoulpur stone etc.).

c) The project report indicated that all outdoor air-conditioning units are to be provided on the terrace, but not shown in plans/3D views etc. The proposal being at the formal stage needs to have coordinated drawings (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.).

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 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 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 plan proposal for additions/alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The materiality to be used on the façade (as shown in 3D views) is not clear, the same shall be elucidated with appropriate annotations for a better understanding of the proposal.

b) The lift lobby space shall be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

c) The proposed 3D views of the proposal be clubbed appropriately with the existing context for a better understanding of the proposal.

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 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 plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and 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 NDMC (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 demolition and reconstruction received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the comments of the concerned local body, i.e., NDMC. Also, the Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect (online) but he was not available. In absence of the discussion held with the architect (online), and submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Inconsistencies have been observed in the submission, 3D views of the terrace and the terrace plan do not match, and design elements like pergolas etc. appear to have been missing in the 3D views submitted. The terrace garden has been shown in 3D views without any provisions for the installation of solar panels etc. The proposal being at the formal stage shall have coordinated, correlated drawings (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.).

b) The air-conditioning mechanism of the proposal is not clear. The mechanism for air conditioning needs to be detailed i.e., location, screening mechanism, 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 architectural elements/material etc., shown in the 3D views & elevations are found to be missing in the sections submitted. All such details including architectural elements, materials on the façade, sun shading mechanisms etc. shall also be shown on all the drawings. Coordinated/correlated drawings (plans/elevations/section/3D views etc.) shall be submitted for a better understanding of the proposal.

d) 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 in the balconies.  

e) Car parking has been shown adjacent to the front boundary wall on a municipal space, which is not accepted by the Commission. Also, the provision of proposed parking shown in the stilt area is not clearly understood. It needs to be clearly indicated in appropriate plans with other parking details including the location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. to have a clear understanding of the functioning of the stilt floor. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

f) The sections should be elucidated with better details 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.

g) 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.

h) 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.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage has inconsistencies and is not sufficiently detailed.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on December 26, 2001.
3. The Commission accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on August 24, 2018.
4. The Commission accepted the concept of the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on July 24, 2020, specific observations were given.
5. The building plan proposal for addition/alteration (extension of auditorium block B+G+9 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Approval Letter no.: OL-22072027056 dated 31.07.2020, and a detailed discussion was held (online) with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the previous observations of the Commission on the conceptual proposal, a discussion held (online), and submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) The Commission observed that while accepting the proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on July 24, 2020, due thought had been given by the Commission while accepting the scheme for the façade in terms of materials, finishes, architectural elements, façade etc. But the current proposal is not harmonious with the same, which is not accepted.

c) Also, the current proposal is part of a large campus, surrounded by a large number of existing developments with certain elevational facades. The Commission opines that the current 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 shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings including built structures, gate/boundary wall, road networks, around the site, for better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment for its judicious considerations.

6. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The 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, February 16, 2023, March 02, 2023, and March 23, 2023, respectively, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (balconies, extension of drawing rooms & kitchen, parking provisions) 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-16032322026 dated 27.03.2023. 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) In terms of the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-16032322026 dated 27.03.2023 unsatisfactory compliances for the same have been made. The Commission also took note that the proposal for additions/alterations has been rejected six times in the past on a similar ground, the casual attitude of the architect in addressing these observations is not appreciated by the Commission.

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 furnish pointwise compliance & 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 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 building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual 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-27022327013 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 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.

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.

Building plans proposal for additions/alterations in respect of Motel building on Khasra no. 51/1 min, 51/10 min, 51/26 Min, 51/6 min, situated at village Bakoli. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of the approval (Formal/Completion) taken from the Commission has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The Commission did not accept the concept of the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on November 10, 2022, and March 16, 2023, specific observations were given. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on February 23, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plan proposal for addition/alteration (additions of a banquet hall, double height banquet, covered lounge (without wall), bakery, kitchen, covered verandah, restaurant area, connecting covered verandah, corridor, multipurpose hall) 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-09032327016 dated 23.03.2023 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, 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 options submitted for accommodating the requisite car parking requirements were found to be acceptable to the Commission.

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.

5. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and the observations communicated vide DUAC observations letter no: OL-09032327016 dated 23.03.2023 in the subsequent submission (formal) and furnish pointwise compliance & reply.

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.

Layout and Building plans 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. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (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, and on March 02, 2023, 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 conceptual 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-01032323012 dated 09.03.2023, 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 options submitted for accommodating the requisite car parking requirements were found to be acceptable to the Commission.

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 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. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and the observations communicated vide DUAC observations letter no: OL-01032323012 dated 09.03.2023 in the subsequent submission (formal) and furnish pointwise compliance & reply.

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.