1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1700th meeting held on 13.04.2023 was discussed.

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 Commission did not accept the NOC for completion at its meeting held on March 02, 2023, specific observations were given.

4. The revised 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-01032359001 dated 09.03.2023 and comments of the concerned local body i.e., East DMC in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the comments received from the local body, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted 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) It was observed that in terms of the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-01032359001 dated 09.03.2023 inadequate/unsatisfactory compliances have been given including a pointwise compliance & reply.

c) It was observed that most of the drawings carry the title & style of “Proposed Smog Tower at Anand Vihar Delhi” However, the proposal is for NOC for Completion, accordingly, the submission needs to be corrected.

d) The Commission has carefully examined its previous observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-27112056010 dated 09.12.2020 and taken note of one of the observations that:

“……The proposed height of the smog tower is 25.0m, with such an imposing height the proposal is likely to become an iconic structure of the area and first of a kind structure in the capital city of Delhi, having the potential to become an example for the other cities as well…….”

The Commission observed that the overall construction of the smog tower appears to have not been done thoughtfully considering the above observations and its likely impact on the visual & urban aesthetics quality of the area.

e) Also, the submission still carries cropped photographs of the portions for which NOC for completion is required. It is again reiterated that being at the Completion stage the proposal needs to provide uncut/clear photographs from all sides of the campus, Smog tower, office, ESS, services etc. to understand the actual site conditions better.

f) From the photographs submitted by the architect/proponent, it is evident that the site still has containers, temporary structures, and loose construction material lying scattered all over the site which appears to be not part of the proposal for NOC for Completion and should have been removed from the site before sending the proposal for consideration of the Commission.  

5. 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.
6. 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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal in respect of NCUI Complex for Jawahar Lal Nehru Co-op Centre at its meeting held on October 06, 1976.
3. The Commission returned back the proposal of layout and building plans in respect of Auditorium-cum-office building in NCUI Complex at its meeting held on May 28, 1997, specific observations were given.
4. The completion plans proposal in respect of Auditorium-cum-office building in NCUI Complex was considered in the Commission meeting dated February 21, 2007.
5. The building plan proposal for demolition (existing G+3 building and reconstruction (B+G+6) of the NCUI hostel building in NCUI Complex received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect (online) but he was not available. In the absence of the discussion held (online), and the submission made, 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, annotated 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 annotated 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) The project is submitted at the Formal stage, the elevations and sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) need to be detailed along with the skin sections (in detail) to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

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

e) Two open vehicular ramps are envisaged to access the proposed basement, the Commission opines that in case the entry to basement ramps needs to be covered in the future, it is suggested to provide their design and related details at this stage, to ensure they duly get incorporated in the design scheme.

f) Discrepancies have been observed in the submission, in one of the drawings of the first floor two conference halls have been proposed, however in some other drawing of the first floor one conference with a terrace have been shown. The proposal being at the formal stage shall have a coordinated submission (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.).

g) It has been observed that a large chunk of space is available on the rooftop, the same can be utilised appropriately for the installation of solar panels above. 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 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.

6. Overall, the proposal is not self-explanatory and due to inconsistencies, it could not be appreciated 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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 28, 2022, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-26042255025 dated 05.05.2022. Based on the previous observations of the Commission, 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, 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.

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 February 09, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-04022355012 dated 13.02.2023, and a detailed discussion was held (online) with the architect who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission.  Based on the previous observations made, a discussion held (online), and revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed that in terms of the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-04022355012 dated 13.02.2023 inadequate/unsatisfactory compliances have been given including pointwise compliance & reply.

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

c) The area marked as ‘waiting’ shall be elucidated with appropriate details including spaces for drinking water, material specifications etc. for a better understanding of the proposal.

d) The architectural elements/material etc. shown in the 3D views & elevations be such detailed to understand the architectural elements, and materials on the façade along with other appropriate details for a better understanding of the proposal.

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, 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 is not self-explanatory and due to inconsistencies, it could not be appreciated 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 North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on December 24, 1986, and specific observations were given.
3. No previous record of approval taken (NOC for Completion) has been found in the available record of the Commission.
4. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on December 22, 2022 and specific observations were given.
5. The building proposal for additions/alterations (addition of one bedroom, toilet & balcony) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, following observations are to be complied with:

1. 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 quality of 3d views is not appropriate. They are very sketchy and the scale, proportion, materials etc. are not understood. The proposal is for additions/alterations to the existing building. The drawings showing existing & proposed changes should be superimposed on the existing structure, in the actual environment, 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 better understanding.

c) The covering of balconies with temporary materials needed to be removed.

d) Four levels of stack parking have been envisaged at the rear setback but without elucidating its feasibility, working mechanism, architectural details etc. to understand its applicability and impact on the visual & aesthetics.

e) It was observed that the proposal had been submitted for addition/ alteration. Considering the structural changes, the structure shall be designed so that it withstands weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes etc. as it is an additional structure added to the existing superstructure. 

f) All rainwater pipes, plumbing pipes should be screened appropriately so as not to mar the aesthetics of the façade.

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, 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.

6. Overall, the proposal is not self-explanatory, it could not be appreciated 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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 25, 2012, specific observations were given. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on May 18, 2018, specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion (addition of Law college and MBA college blocks and director’s office) received (online) at the Completion stage was scrutinized along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the observations/recommendations received and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the record for approval taken for Director’s Office is not found in the available record of the Commission. The same shall ensured to be provided for reference and record of the Commission.

b) The proposal has been submitted for NOC for Completion (part- addition of Law college and MBA college blocks and director’s office) but uncut photographs (from all sides including the terrace) of the completed structure (for which NOC for completion is required) are not comprehensible. The same shall be provided with proper labelling/delineation and uncut/clear photographs from all sides to substantiate the actual work executed at the site.

c) From the submitted photographs provided, the rainwater pipes (RWP) and the air-conditioners are visible on the façade spoiling & marring the visual and the urban aesthetics of the area. The same shall be appropriately screened so that not to remain visible and spoil the façade.

d) 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), if any, to understand the extents of deviations made internally as well as external changes made with respect to the sanctioned plan.

e) 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 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 extensive additions/alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the comments of the concerned local body, i.e., NDMC, 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 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 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.

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 23, 2000.
3. The Commission accepted the NOC for completion at its meeting held on June 05, 2007, specific observations were given.
4. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (bedroom, toilet, extension of drawing room & balconies) 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 (online) with the architect, 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 3D views provided give an impression of a new proposal. The additions/alteration are difficult to comprehend properly. The additions/alterations shall be superimposed on the existing superstructure for a better understanding of the proposal for additions/alterations in the actual environment.

c) The proposal is for additions/alterations to the existing superstructure, but the photographs of the existing situation on the site are not presented satisfactorily which made it difficult to comprehend the existing situation on the site. It was suggested to submit photographs of the existing structure from all sides (including the terrace) and all setbacks (preferably photographs taken from the terrace) to understand the overall existing situation of the site better.

d) It was observed that the set-back roads appear to have also been counted towards achieving ECS calculations (for car parking) the set-back roads are suggested to be kept free from all vehicular parking requirements; they shall be kept free for emergencies.

e) All temporary coverings/extensions must be removed.

f) It was observed that the proposal had been submitted for addition/ alteration. Considering the structural changes, the structure shall be designed so that it withstands weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes etc. as it is an additional structure added to the existing superstructure.

g) The toilets have been proposed without considering the plumbing arrangements, as the exposed sanitary pipes would spoil the visual & the urban aesthetics of the area. All rainwater pipes, plumbing pipes should be screened appropriately so as not to mar the aesthetics of the façade.

h) Also, the existing photographs indicate the outdoor air-conditioners all over the façade. The same shall be screened appropriately in terms of point no. 11 (related to the Method of Concealing Air Conditioning Equipment) of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. in the proposed scheme for additions/alterations so as not to mar the aesthetics.

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, 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.

5. Overall, the proposal for additions/alterations received at the formal stage is not self-explanatory and sufficiently detailed, due to which it could not be examined judiciously 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 DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on August 23, 1996, and the revised building plans proposal for additions/alterations was approved at its meeting held on April 05, 2018.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on January 25, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. 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-19012348002 dated 31.01.2023 and comments given by the concerned local body i.e., DDA in Proforma parts ‘B’ and part ‘C’. Based on the replies submitted, comments received from the concerned local body (DDA) 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-19012348002 dated 31.01.2023 unsatisfactory compliances for the same have been made. The Compliances shall be made in their entirety.

b) The Commission took note of letter no: RTK/131/23 dated 14.04.2023 from the Secretary, the Ratnakar Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd., in this regard and do not accept the request made for NOC for completion without conforming to its previous observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-19012348002 dated 31.01.2023.

5. In view of the inadequate compliance with its previous observations, the proposal for            NOC for the completion plan could not be appreciated 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.

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, March 23, 2023, and April 06, 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-03042322029 dated 11.04.2023. 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-03042322029 dated 11.04.2023 unsatisfactory compliances for the same have been made. The Commission also took note that the proposal for additions/alterations has been rejected seven 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.

Revised Layout and Building plan proposal in respect of Motel on Khasra no. 43/1 Min, 43/2 Min, 43/3 Min, 43/9 Min, 43/12 Min, 43/19 Min, 43/20 Min, 43/11 Min at Village Bakoli. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal (Formal) at its meeting held on June 29, 2016, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plans proposal received (online) at the Conceptual stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The quality of 3d views is not appropriate. The scale, proportion, materials etc. are not understood. Annotated 3D views from all sides including the terrace, public interface areas, drop-off points, banquet areas, double-height portions, terrace garden areas etc., shall be provided with better visuals specifying the materials to be used on the façade be provided. The 25.0m mandatory green belt has been shown as if it is part of the proposed design scheme, thus not giving the correct condition of the site. The 3d views, accordingly, be corrected & revised and resubmitted for the review of the Commission.

b) Annotated 3D views of the proposed design scheme shall be superimposed on 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. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

c) The overall elevations of the building blocks appear to be too weak in terms of architectural design. The entire elevation is suggested to be relooked to enhance the scale and grandness of the building with appropriate architectural elements.  Overall aesthetics to be improved. The elevational features on the terrace are to be adequately detailed. It shall be submitted with proper detailing (including 3D views).

d) The total parking requirements of the site have been indicated as 447 ECS and the same have claimed to have been provided in the two proposed basements, considering the area of the basements the same appears to be not correct. Also, with the provision made for four (04) banquet halls, the parking arrangements shall be relooked at and a truthful detailed parking plan with numbers, locations, and movement of cars etc. shall be provided for the judicious consideration of the proposal.

e) The proposed building block has been placed on the site to have vehicular roads all around leaving no space for a consolidated green space thereby forming a lot of hard areas and creating a heat island effect. It shall be reviewed with environmental considerations.

f) As the area would be used extensively by pedestrians as well, a combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plans from outside to the different buildings 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.

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) The area housing the DG set shall be elucidated with appropriate details (architectural) including its screening and the screening mechanism of the DG exhaust pipe with its integration with the superstructure.

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, 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 proposed design scheme presented to the Commission is not self-explanatory, the same shall be relooked at and reviewed as per the above observations of the Commission. 
5. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

Building plan proposal in respect of Redevelopment of Boys’ Hostel at Hindu College, Delhi University. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 30, 2009, and the proposal for additions/alterations in respect of a library, the addition of a canteen, demolition & reconstruction of the principal bungalow was approved in the meeting held on February 26, 2020.
3. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for the addition of a new faculty block (G+1) adjacent to the existing academic block at its meeting held on April 28, 2022, specific observations were given.
4. The building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction of the boys’ hostel (stilts+G+4) received (online) at the conceptual 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 for the proposed boy’s hostel is part of a large college campus with buildings of diverse use and architectural vocabulary. Accordingly, the same shall be studied not in isolation but 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.

b) The architect has indicated the overall parking requirements as 748 ECS and has envisaged provisions for a double stack in the stilt area under the proposed building block, but the numbers likely to be accommodated have not been indicated. Also, no provision has been made for creating a basement under the proposed superstructure for fulfilling the requisite parking requirements. The Commission opines that in the past the building has been kept coming for its consideration for additions/alterations and demolition & reconstruction etc., but no effort has been made to accommodate the requisite parking in the basement. It could cause an impact on the visual & urban aesthetics of the campus.  It was, accordingly, suggested to make provisions for basements in all upcoming building proposals.

c) 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.

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

e) All service equipment, water tanks, outdoor air-conditioning units, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, plumbing 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. Overall, the proposed design scheme presented to the Commission is not self-explanatory, the same shall be relooked at and reviewed as per the above observations of the Commission. 
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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 07, 2018, specific observations were given. The revised layout and building plans proposal (Tower-1, Clubhouse and Swimming Pool) was approved by the Commission at its meeting held on December 11, 2020, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission accepted the concept of the revised building plans proposal (increase in floors of Tower-1 from 3B+G+33 to 3B+G+36 floors) at its meeting held on February 19, 2021.
4. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion (Part- for EWS Block, Tower-2 and Block-2) at its meeting held on February 02, 2023, and March 16, 2023, specific observations were given.
5. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion (Part-for EWS Block, Tower 2 and Block-2) 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-15032358006 dated 23.03.2023, and comments were given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in Performa ‘B’ & ‘C’. Based on the comments received from the concerned local body (South DMC) and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal has been submitted for NOC for Completion (Part- for EWS Block, Tower-2 and Block-2) at the completion stage, and examined the drawings/documentation/photographs of the built construction etc., carefully along with the previous observations of the Commission. From the photographs of the built superstructure, it was concluded that the superstructure is still not complete to the extent that scaffolding is seen in some of the photographs, window panes appear to be missing in the majority of units, construction material is seen lying here & there, covering of ramps are missing etc. Overall, the façade is not ready to be appreciated for its visual & aesthetic value.

b) The Commission opines that the proposal for NOC for completion shall be submitted once all the works including civil, landscape etc. are complete as per formal approval in entirety.

6. Overall, the proposal for NOC for Completion (part) is not complete to be appreciated by the Commission for its judicious review and comment.
7. 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 East DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The 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, 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.

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, and on March 02, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plans proposal received (online) at the formal 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-27022362003 dated 09.03.2023. Based on the replies submitted, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Stack and pit parking arrangements have been envisaged to accommodate 150 ECS. The architect/proponent shall ensure its actual execution at the site and the same shall be checked at the time of receiving the proposal at the Completion stage.

b) 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.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal was withdrawn by the proponent/architect vide their email request dated 26.04.2023.