1. Action Taken Reports regarding the Minutes of the 1757th meeting held on 25.04.2024 were discussed.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on December 01, 2018, specific observations were made.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized, 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), and the submission made, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) Discrepancies have been noticed in the submission received at the formal stage, particularly regarding the title of the proposal as stated in the filled MCD Performa:

“…..Motel building on khasra no. 83,84,85,90, 91/1-2, 100/1-2, 101, 102 at Village Satbari….”

Where as the presentation is bearing the title as:

“……Group Housing, Grand Buildtech, Chhatarpur…”

In view of the discrepancy stated above in the formal submission received from the concerned local body i.e., MCD, it is returned without consideration of the Commission.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission did not accept the building plans proposal (conceptual) at its meeting held on December 28, 2023 but accepted the concept of building plans proposal at its meeting held on January 25, 2024, observations were made. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal (Formal) at its meeting held on March 07, 2024 and March 28, 2024 respectively, where specific observations were made.
3. The building plan 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 letter no: F.No. 55(82)/2024-DUAC, OL-27032455082 dated April 02, 2024 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), and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) In terms of the previous observations of the Commission Communicated vide DUAC letter no: F. No. 55(82)/2024-DUAC, OL-27032455082 dated April 02, 2024, unsatisfactory compliances for the same has been given.

b) In one of the responses to the Commission's prior observations, the architect has indicated that:

“…….full FSI of the site has been considered for designing the basement car parking keeping in mind the present and the future car parking demand ….”

However, this claim does not align with the area chart provided. It is advised to reassess the necessary car parking provisions, considering both present and future parking needs of the project, and to redesign the basement accordingly.  It could be considered to extend basement  to the setback line to accommodate a greater number of parking spaces.

c) While the width of the ramp at the turning is stated to be 9.15m, the internal turning radius near the staircase/lift core appears to be inadequate for efficient vehicular circulation. Therefore, turning radius should be increased to facilitate comfortable movement at the ramp's turning point by shifting centre of curvature inwards and increasing radius.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks adequate compliances on its previous observations. The Architect is advised to address all the above Commission's observations and it is requested that the Architect submit a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission in a clear and point-by-point manner.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal in respect of Enclosing Southern Corridor in Front of Court No.1 To 5 with Structural Glazing, Supreme Court of India received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized 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), and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the internal height of the corridor, intended to be externally covered with structural glass glazing, is approximately 8.26 meters. To support such a sizable glazed structure, a framework of white powder-coated aluminium comprising both vertical and horizontal members has been proposed. However, this proposal lack extensive details, including material fixing mechanisms and 3D views from various angles, to fully grasp its overall impact on the visual and urban aesthetics of the court complex.

b) However, due to the absence of fixing details, detailed 3D views, and large-scale specifications, the Commission opines that the horizontal members proposed in the aluminium frame to support the glazing may be avoided. To enhance visual aesthetics, it should be considered to ensure that the aluminium sections are not visible on the outer facade.

c) Reflected ceiling plans and 3D views of the ceiling, along with detailed information on materiality, lighting design, and the provision of diffusers/fire sprinklers, should be included to elucidate the treatment of the proposed ceiling design, and make a judicious review of the proposal.

d) Any additional alterations proposed in the corridor area in front of the court, which impact the aesthetics, must be included in the submission.

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

3. The Architect is advised to address all the above Commission's observations and it is requested that the Architect submit a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission in a clear and point-by-point manner.

1. The DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on at its meeting held on January 4, 2019.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the proponent, who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission, and also provided a detailed video of the complex covering all the areas. Based on the submission made for NOC for completion including drawings/documentations/photographs and the video of the complex submitted by the proponent, the proposal for NOC for Completion is found to be accepted.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the Commission's available record. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal (Formal) at its meeting held on March 21, 2024 and April 25, 2024 respectively, where specific observations were made.
3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized along with the replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No.: 23(118)/2024-DUAC, OL-23042423118 dated April 29, 2024, respectively. Based on 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 or cover the existing construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) 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.

c) All water tanks, rainwater pipes, 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 North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the Commission's available record. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal (Formal) at its meeting held on February 08, 2024, and March 21, 2024, and April 25, 2024 respectively, where specific observations were made.
3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (for balconies and jaali to screen plumbing pipes only) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized along with the replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No.: 23(119)/2024-DUAC, OL-23042423119 dated April 29, 2024. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the building has already been constructed at site and the MCD has regularised the plans. The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations, it did not consider or cover the existing construction at the site. This only concerns the proposal for additions/alterations (for balconies, and jaali to screen plumbing pipes only).

b) In terms of the previous observations of the Commission Communicated vide DUAC letter no: 23(119)/2024-DUAC, OL-23042423119 dated April 29, 2024, unsatisfactory compliances for the same has been given.

c) Inconsistency has been observed in the submission, the title of the projects indicated in the MCD proforma as:

“….PSP Facilities Building on Plot No: 2-A, Club Road, situated at Civil Lines…”

However, the landuse of the property as per Master Plan, Zonal/approved master plan as:

“...Residential…”

As the proposal is currently at the formal stage, it is imperative that the title and the land use of the premises be rectified and accurately represented in the Performa and the drawings for consideration of the Commission.

d) Further, two options of the Railing design have been presented by the architect. Option-2 for railing design seems to be a suitable option. Although, details including balcony materiality, height of skirting and slopes, rainwater pipe detail including (screening mechanism as also the same for treatment of spaces for drying of clothes shall be supplemented through detailed sections, annotated 3d views to better explain the design of the balcony.

e) The proposed jaali structure should be elaborated upon, including skin sections detailing fixing methods, termination points, and other relevant aspects, to enhance comprehension of the proposal.

4. The Architect is advised to address all the above Commission's observations and it is requested that the Architect submit a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission in a clear and point-by-point manner.