1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1698th meeting held on 30.03.2023 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 plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised 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 discussion held (online) and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal is at the formal stage but the 3d views design scheme is not appropriately documented. Annotated 3D views from all sides with better viewing angles including birds-eye views clearly indicating the materials to be used on the façade shall be submitted for its better understanding and judicious consideration by the Commission.

b) The proposal is for demolition and reconstruction, demolition plan of the existing development on the site shall be submitted. Also, cropped photographs of the existing site conditions have been submitted which do not clearly indicate the required details. An appropriate number of uncut existing site pictures are to be provided to understand the existing site condition. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides to understand the site conditions better.

c) Submission is at the formal stage, the elevations and sections shall be appropriately detailed and presented with clarity showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. for a better understanding of the proposal. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

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 on the balconies.  

e) The design of the gate and the boundary wall would have a bearing on the overall aesthetics; 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) Air-conditioning mechanism of the building is not clear, the same shall be elucidated with its location, and the appropriate treatments used for its concealment & screening. Also, it shall be ensured that there is no leakage from the AC units causing deterioration of spaces (indoor and outdoor).

g) The details of parking are not appreciated, and the provisions made for parking in the basement appear to be not feasible. The same shall be revised appropriately with the location. All parking requirements must be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines.

h) The discrepancy has been observed, the location of the manhole is shown just above the car lift which is not possible, the drawing shall be appropriately corrected and resubmitted.

i) 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.

j) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, 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.

4. In view of the non-satisfactory submission provided to the Commission, 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 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 (alteration at ground, first floor and addition of 2 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) A variety of materials have been used on the façade but the same is not appropriately annotated in the 3D views. The proposal being at the formal stage shall be appropriately presented and submitted.

b) Also, the arched-shaped architectural element as the sun-shade is blocking the window opening, the same shall be appropriately revised such that these elements permit the upper side of the window opening – potentially by making the upper sill flat rather than arched.

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. In view of the non-satisfactory submission provided to the Commission, 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 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 received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

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

b) The landing shall be appropriately made to the staircase leading down to the basement for easy accessibility and usability. The drawings shall be revised accordingly and resubmitted.

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 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. 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 addition/alterations (expansion of the ground, 1^st and 2^nd floor and addition of 2 floors over the existing basement+stilt+ground+2floors) existing floors and received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised 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 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) The submitted 3D view does not portray the correct site conditions, the 3D views give the impression of a new building proposed. The proposal is for additions/alterations to the existing building. The expansion from the ground floor onwards and an addition of a third floor above an existing development, the drawings showing existing & proposed changes should be superimposed on the existing structure in the 3D views (including terrace & bird's eye view), to highlight the proposed modifications clearly with proper annotations specifying materials to be used and corresponding to proposal drawings, to be submitted to ensure clarity of the scheme and its judicious considerations.

c) The proposal has been submitted for the addition of a new floor (third floor) above the existing superstructure. A lot of live/dead load is being added to the existing building. The structure shall be designed so that it can withstand weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes etc. and can withstand the additional load.

d) Existing site photographs do not provide a clear understanding of the overall site conditions, thus difficult to appreciate and visualize the proposal in the current context. An appropriate nos. of site photographs (including stilt area, existing basement, terrace, gate & boundary wall etc.) 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. 

e) Provisions made for proposed parking are not clearly understood, it has been indicated by the architect for making provisions of 39 ECS on the surface but considering only 6.0 m site setbacks it appears to be not possible. Also, the parking provisions made in the stilt area and the existing basement are not understood, the same shall be elucidated with the location of cars, and their movement pattern in the site including access to and from the basement. Existing parking and parking from additional FAR (proposed) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with a bifurcation of two.

f) Some of the photographs submitted by the architect show an existing transformer and some room construction in the set-back area causing hindrance to vehicular movement around the site & which is also not shown in any of the existing layout plans. The Commission strongly suggests that set-back areas/roads counted towards achieving ECS calculations (for car parking) are not acceptable. These areas are suggested to be kept free from all vehicular parking requirements; they shall be kept free for emergencies. Alternative mechanisms shall be explored to accommodate all the existing and proposed parking requirements of the proposal without compromising areas meant for setbacks and fire tender movement around the site.

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, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, 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.

4. In view of the non-satisfactory submission provided to the Commission, 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 furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 25, 2021, and specific observations were given.
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 Observation letter no: OL-18082124024 dated 01.09.2021 and comments of the concerned local body i.e., NDMC in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect (online) but he was not available. Based on the comments received from the local body, in absence of a discussion held (online), and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Cropped photographs of the completion plan proposal have been submitted which do not clearly indicate the required details. An appropriate number of existing site pictures are to be provided to understand the existing site condition better including photographs from outside with the main gate open. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides to comprehend the proposal evidently.

b) Due thought had been given by the Commission while approving the case at the formal level, especially the façade, architectural elements, materials, finishes etc. While comparing the 3D views of the proposal approved (formal approval) with the completed façade, it has been observed that the same has been altered substantially thereby spoiling the visual, aesthetics of the façade.

c) 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 the completion plan could not be appreciated judiciously by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal (for Block D and MLCP) at its meeting held on April 16, 2014. The Commission approved the revised building plans proposal at its meeting held on January 13, 2016, and accepted the NOC for Completion (for Block D) at its meeting held on May 02, 2019.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for completion at its meeting held on February 02, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion (Part-MLCP Block only) received (online) at the Completion stage was scrutinized along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-31012348006 dated 07.02.2023 and observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., DDA in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the replies submitted, observations/recommendations received, and the revised submission made, the proposal for NOC for Completion is found acceptable.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal was deferred.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of the approval 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) The proposal is at the formal stage but the site photographs were found to be missing in the submission, an appropriate number of photographs of the site shall be submitted to understand the actual site conditions better.

b) It was observed from the layout of the proposal that transformers, DG set, ventilation shafts, HT panel, HT meter, guard room, Chiller area etc. are occupying a lot of set-back areas but the same is not captured in the 3D views submitted. The Commission opines that these areas if not dealt with appropriately with suitable screening mechanisms could spoil the visual & urban aesthetics of the area. These areas shall be appropriately detailed and elucidated with suitable details (including 3D views) including materials used for screening mechanism for its judicious consideration by the Commission.

c) The 3D views shall also include a porch, common interface areas, drop-off points, common lobby areas, terraces areas (accommodating utilities, solar panels, air-conditioning systems, nighttime views (to understand lighting mechanism better etc.)) 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.

d) The provisions made for the mechanical tower parking are not sufficiently detailed with elevations/sections/3D views etc. to understand its working mechanism better including its vehicular access/exit etc.

e) It was observed that the location of the public toilet and the guard room etc. are also part of the formal submission but their detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have not been submitted. The Commission observed that these components have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex. The same is to be revised appropriately and incorporated for review by the Commission.

f) In addition to the above, a detailed design scheme to screen the DG exhaust pipes and their fixing to the superstructure shall be elucidated with appropriate details, including screening mechanisms, 3D views etc.

g) A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) is supposed to be generated in the polyclinic area, a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location on the site plan be submitted.

h) The mechanism for air conditioning needs to be detailed i.e., location, areas of inflow/outflow in indoor areas and the appropriate treatments used to conceal/screen the air-conditioning system. Also, it shall be ensured that there is no leakage from the AC unit causing deterioration of spaces (indoor and outdoor).

i) The provision of utilities, services, and other facilities etc., on the terrace, is not reflected in the drawings/3d views, thus not giving a complete picture including overhead utilities in the complex, which could have a bearing on the urban aesthetics from aerial perspectives and tall buildings in the vicinity.

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 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.

4. Overall, the submission is not elucidated appropriately for the judicious consideration of 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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 16, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction 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-14032324003 dated 23.03.2023 and comments of the concerned local body i.e., NDMC. Based on the replies submitted, comments received 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, 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.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on September 20, 2017, and specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on March 23, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion (Part-sixth & seventh floor only) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-13032348009 dated 27.03.2023 comments of the concerned local body i.e., DDA in parts ‘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 (part) is accepted (but without advertisement boards displayed on the façade).

Revised Building plans proposal in respect of Residence at Plot no. 5C, Rustamji Sehgal Marg, Civil Lines. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission accepted the concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 15, 2020, specific observations were given and approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 26, 2020.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on March 16, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plans proposal 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 Approval letter no: OL-14032327019 dated 23.03.2023. 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, 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.

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 additions/alterations in respect of Saroj Super Speciality Hospital at Plot No.-2, Block A, Sector -14, Rohini. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (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 layout and building plan proposal in respect of additions/alterations (additions to existing superstructure comprising of B+G+4, proposed block-A (2B+G+11), block-B (B+G+4), and tower parking) received (online) at the Conceptual stage was scrutinised. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal (online) with the architect but he was not available. Based on the submission made, and in absence of a discussion held (online), the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal is for additions/alteration (addition of new building blocks A, B, and tower parking), but no previous record of approvals taken (Formal/Completion) was not found in the available record of the Commission. The same shall be provided for its judicious consideration.

b) The Commission observed that the proposal is for extensive additions/alterations and a new car parking tower block (18.80m high) to an existing hospital building.  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 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.

c) Existing site photographs do not provide a clear understanding of the areas where the proposed development (including the new car-parking block) has been envisaged, thus difficult to appreciate and visualize the proposed design scheme in the current context. An appropriate nos. of site photographs (including basements, access ramps etc.) 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.

d) The architect in its project report has indicated that the location of the site is 1.00 km from the nearest metro station but has availed a 30% reduction, which needs to be relooked at. Also, the provision of the proposed parking envisaged 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. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

e) Only one 3D view of the proposed car parking tower has been provided but without requisite plans/elevations/sections etc. for a better understanding of the design proposal, the same shall be elucidated with appropriate details.

f) 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.

g) 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 design proposal received at the conceptual stage is not elucidated appropriately for the judicious consideration of the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

Not accepted, observations given.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on March 29, 2023, specific observations were given.
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 along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-26032323018 dated 05.04.2023. Based on the previous observations 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 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.