1. Action Taken Reports regarding the Minutes of the 1759th meeting held on 09.05.2024 were discussed.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal 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 scrutinized, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the proposal is for demolition & reconstruction. The proposal is being at the formal stage, but the quality of the submission is not comprehensible. Only one view has been provided, seems rendered elevation and lacking relevant building details. Given the formal stage of the submission, the architect to ensure it is complete in all respects, including plans, elevations, sections, annotated (with materiality) 3D views from all four sides, and bird's-eye views showing utilities and services on the terrace floor for the Commission's review.

b) It was also noted that all requisite parking arrangements have been made on the surface only, with the proposed ground coverage at 24.03% (permissible: 30%) and the proposed FAR at 48.07% (permissible: 120%) of the plot area. This indicates that the site would not be able to accommodate the full FSI parking requirements. It is suggested that the proposed parking should be designed with future requirements in consideration (full FSI). Alternative options for parking should be explored, such as designing basements, to free up open surfaces for green spaces, thereby enhancing the visual and urban aesthetics of the area.

c) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, ensure to be installed in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

4. Overall due to the incompleteness and lack of clarity in the submission received at the formal stage. The Architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations. 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 Commission approved the building plan proposal in respect of Museum of Prime Ministers of India at its meeting held on October 08, 2018. The Commission accepted the NOC for completion at its meeting held on December 12, 2021, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission approved the proposal for the construction of the main gate at the Prime Ministers Museum at Teen Murti Marg at its meeting held on July 20, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinized and based on the the submission, the proposal for NOC for Completion is found acceptable.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The semi-circular detail on the left portion of the basement floors appears to be creating negative spaces prone to seepage.

b) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, ensure to be installed in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

c) 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.

d) 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 DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 29, 1999, and accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on June 01, 2016.
3. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (additions from the ground to the third floor, and proposed fourth floor) at its meeting held on April 18, 2018 and did not accept the NOC for Completion (Part- additions from ground to third floor, for fourth floor) at its meeting held on August 03, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The revised proposal for NOC for completion (Part- additions from ground to third floor, for fourth floor) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-28072348018 dated August 09, 2023. Based on the submission made, the proposal for NOC for Completion (Part- additions from ground to third floor, for fourth floor) is found acceptable.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission accepted the concept of the building plans proposal at its meeting held on April 05, 2024 and specific observations were given.
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 Conceptually Suitable letter no: OL-02042427013 dated April 10, 2024. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, ensure to be installed in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

Building plans proposal for additions and alterations in respect of Commercial/Residential building at plot no. 2955, Kucha Maidas, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi-110006. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal (Formal) at its meeting held on March 28, 2024, April 18, 2024 and May 16, 2024 respectively. And the concept of the building plans proposal was not accepted by the Commission at its meeting held on April 25, 2024, specific observations were made.
3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of first, second, and third floor above an existing ground floor) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Unsuitable Letter No.: OL-22042427016 dated April 29, 2024. 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) The Commission noted that the proposal at the conceptual stage was reviewed during its meeting on May 16, 2024. However, the architect resubmitted the proposal on May 18, 2024, without waiting for the detailed written observations (communicated via DUAC observation letter no: 23(125)/2024-DUAC, OL-09052423125 dated May 24, 2024) and without addressing the observations. This is not appreciated by the Commission.

c) The Commission observed that the proposal has been reviewed multiple times without significant compliance with its previous observations, which is also not appreciated.

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 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.

4. The Architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations (current & previous). 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. 
    

Building plans proposal for addition/alteration in respect of Maharaj Agrasen Hospital at Rohtak Road, West Punjabi Bagh. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the building plans proposal at its February 07, 1992, meeting. The Commission accepted the concept of extension of the hospital at its meeting held on January 08, 2021. Subsequently, the Commission approved the extension of the hospital proposal (Formal) at its meeting held on February 19, 2021, where specific observations were made.
3. The Commission did not accept the concept of building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its April 18, 2024, meeting, where specific observations were made.
4. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of three floors above an existing building and a new MLCP block) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Unsuitable Letter No.: OL-09042427014 dated April 23, 2024. Based previous observations, 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 or cover the existing construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations (addition of three floors above an existing building and a new MLCP block) only.

b) The Commission noted that the previous observations, communicated via DUAC letter no: OL-09042427014 dated April 23, 2024, have not been satisfactorily addressed, which is not appreciated.

c) Discrepancies have been noted in the submission. The proposed elevations do not align with the 3D views presented. The proposed elevation shows grooves that are not reflected in the 3D views, leading to an inaccurate visualization of the proposed façade, which could impact the overall aesthetics of the area. These inconsistencies should be corrected, and a coordinated submission should be provided for the Commission's thorough review.

d) It is again reiterated that the quality of elevations and sections provided is not appreciated (they are very basic), and need to be detailed 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.

e) The design scheme submitted by the Architect is not comprehensible, i.e., it is not self-explanatory. Since the scheme is for additions/alterations, the additions/changes made should be marked on the drawings (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) for the judicious review of the Commission.

f) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, ensure to be installed in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

g) 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.

h) 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.

5. The Architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations (current & previous communicated via DUAC letter no: OL-09042427014 dated April 23, 2024). 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 SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on November 26, 2018 and specific observations were given.
3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal is located near the International Airport of Delhi, facing the Delhi-Jaipur Expressway (NH-48), an area frequented by numerous domestic and international tourists/visitors. An appropriate number of proposed 3D views should be prepared from the NH-48 roadside.

b) To better understand the proposal within its actual environment, annotated 3D views of the proposed design should be superimposed on the existing structure, including the surrounding context, road networks, and nearby structures.

c) Discrepancies have been noted in the submission received at the formal stage. The proposed elevations do not align with the proposed 3D views presented, leading to an inaccurate visualization of the proposed façade, which could impact the overall aesthetics of the area. These inconsistencies should be corrected, and a coordinated submission should be provided for the Commission's thorough review.

d) The 3D views reveal that the site includes multiple levels accessed via ramps. However, the proposed sections and elevations do not clearly illustrate the access to different entry/exit levels of the building. The submission should include site sections that cut across these various levels to explain the connections between the basement, road, and upper levels of the building, round about island etc. for better understanding of the proposal.

e) The Commission noted that the proposal includes six towers of varying heights and a club, but the submission lacks necessary details such as plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views from all four sides. Additionally, annotated 3D views should be provided to illustrate the materiality of the façade, as this could impact the visual and urban aesthetics of the area. The submission should be corrected and resubmitted for the Commission's review.

f) The submitted plans for the club are very basic and do not include the architectural elements shown in the proposed 3D views, such as sun shading mechanisms and plumbing details etc. Additionally, the elevation features of the buildings are not reflected in the sections.

g) The terrace of the club has been depicted as a vast green space without allocation for necessary elements such as air-conditioning units, solar panels, DG exhaust pipes, landscaping specifics, and soil depth etc. These aspects need to be elucidated with appropriate details for review.

h) Additionally, detailed internal functional arrangements for various services within the club, including the banquet hall, restaurant, café, kitchen services, as well as the positioning of essential services such as the DG set, DG exhaust pipes, and solar panels, should be provided. Comprehensive floor plans, sections, and elevations shall be supplemented to address these aspects.

i) The proposed gate, boundary wall, and toilet under SBM, among other elements, have been presented in isolation. A holistic design scheme should be prepared to better understand their collective impact on the aesthetics of the complex.

j) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, ensure to be installed in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

k) 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.

l) All water tanks, rainwater pipes, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes, 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 received at the formal stage have inconsistencies, lacks clarity and is not self-explanatory. The Architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations. 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.