1. Action Taken Reports regarding the Minutes of the 1762nd meeting held on 30.05.2024 were discussed.

1. The South DMC 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 for additions/alterations (addition of a third floor) received online at the formal stage was scrutinized. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect online, but he was not available. Based on the formal stage submission and the architect's unavailability for online discussion, 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 for additions/alterations involves adding a third floor to an existing structure comprising B+G+2 floors. There is a discrepancy between the existing photographs and the proposed 3D views, as the 3D views do not align with the existing façade shown in the photographs. Furthermore, it appears to be a case of demolition and reconstruction. This needs to be reviewed, and the design scheme should be corrected and coordinated accordingly before resubmission for the Commission’s review.

c) As this is a case of additions/alterations, actual photographs of all sides of the existing property should be submitted to provide a clearer understanding of the site and built construction.

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. The Architect is advised to submit a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission in a clear and point-by-point manner.

1. The South DMC 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 for additions/alterations (addition of a third floor) received online at the formal stage was scrutinized. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect online, but he was not available. Based on the formal stage submission and the architect's unavailability for online discussion, 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 for additions/alterations involves adding a third floor to an existing structure comprising B+G+2 floors. There is a discrepancy between the existing photographs and the proposed 3D views, as the 3D views do not align with the existing façade shown in the photographs. Furthermore, it appears to be a case of demolition and reconstruction. This needs to be reviewed, and the design scheme should be corrected and coordinated accordingly before resubmission for the Commission’s review.

c) As this is a case of additions/alterations, actual photographs of all sides of the existing property should be submitted to provide a clearer understanding of the site and built construction.

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. The Architect is advised to submit a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission in a clear and point-by-point manner.

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, March 21, 2024, April 25, 2024 and May 09, 2024 respectively, 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 by the Architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No.: 23(124)/2024-DUAC, OL-08052423124 dated May 16, 2024. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect online, but he was not available. Based on the formal stage submission and the architect's unavailability for online discussion, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the building has already been constructed at site without approvals from the Commission 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) The Commission observed that the proposal is currently at the formal stage and appears to have been resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing the previous observations communicated in DUAC Observation Letter No. 23(124)/2024-DUAC, OL-08052423124 dated May 16, 2024.

4. In view of the above, it is returned to the concerned local body without consideration of the Commission. The Architect is advised to address all the previous and above 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 North DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 24, 2022, 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 Approval letter no: OL-16032222016 dated March 30, 2022. Based on the submission made and the previous observations of the Commission, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the proposal has been received at the completion stage, but the submitted photographs of the built construction are inadequate and some are cropped. These photos do not accurately depict the extent of the actual construction completed on the site.

b) Uncut, clear, and accurate photographs from all sides of the completed superstructure (including connecting bridge, parking areas, double stack parking arrangements, double car-lift areas, installation of solar panels, terraces, etc.) for which the NOC for completion is required should be provided. These photographs should be properly labelled and delineated to substantiate the actual work executed, for the Commission's review.

c) For a better understanding of the proposal side by side photographs ‘Before (submitted 3d views at the time of DUAC formal approval) and After (current actual built construction)’ of the constructed building blocks to be provided.

d) Approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall be superimposed on the plans/elevations/sections etc., over actual built structure on the site, existing & proposed changes done in the design from the approval (by DUAC), to understand the extents of deviations made internally as well as external changes made with respect to the sanctioned plan, if any.

e) 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, in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) shall be provided.

4. In view of the inadequate information provided for the proposal received at the completion stage, the proposal for completion could not be fully appreciated by the Commission. The Architect is advised to submit a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission in a clear and point-by-point manner.

1. The DIAL forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission accepted the building plans proposal at its meeting held on October 16, 2019.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion 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), and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the proposal has been received at the completion stage, but the submitted photographs of the built construction are inadequate. The site photographs show patches of unfinished surfaces, missing glass on the upper floors, an unfinished guard room, and a boundary wall with scaffolding, which do not accurately depict the extent of the actual construction completed on the site.

b) Uncut and clear photographs from all sides of the completed superstructure (including main gate boundary wall, parking areas, basement, terraces, etc.) for which the NOC for completion is required should be provided. These photographs should be properly labelled and delineated to substantiate the actual work executed, for the Commission's review.

c) For a better understanding of the proposal side by side photographs ‘Before (submitted 3d views at the time of DUAC formal approval) and After (current actual built construction)’ of the constructed building blocks to be provided.

d) Approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall be superimposed on the plans/elevations/sections etc., over actual built structure on the site, existing & proposed changes done in the design from the approval (by DUAC), to understand the extents of deviations made internally as well as external changes made with respect to the sanctioned plan, if any.

e) 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, in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) shall be provided.

4. In view of the inadequate information provided for the proposal received at the completion stage, the proposal for completion could not be fully appreciated by the Commission. The Architect is advised to submit a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission in a clear and point-by-point manner.
    

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) during its meetings on March 28, 2024, April 18, 2024, and May 16, 2024. Additionally, the concept of the building plans proposal was not accepted at its meetings on April 25, 2024, and May 24, 2024, with specific observations made. However, the Commission approved (formal stage) the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting on May 30, 2024, with specific observations provided.
3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (some additions in existing ground floor, and addition of first, second, and third floor above) received (online) at the Conceptual stage was scrutinized along with the approval (formal) given by the Commission at its meeting held on May 30, 2024 vide DUAC Observation Letter No.: 23(127)/2024-DUAC, OL-28052423127 dated May 30, 2024. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect online, but he was not available. Based on the previous approval (formal) given, and the revised submission made (conceptual stage), the following observation is given:

a) The Commission noted that the proposal for additions/alterations at the formal stage was already considered during its meeting on May 30, 2024, with the decision conveyed online via DUAC Observation Letter No.: 23(127)/2024-DUAC, OL-28052423127 dated May 30, 2024. The current submission at the conceptual stage was received on June 03, 2024, without specifying the reasons for resubmission following formal stage approval. In light of this, the current submission (conceptual stage) is returned to the architect without consideration by the Commission.

Building plan proposal in respect of demolition and reconstruction of Nursery school-Nutan Vidya Mandir, A.G.C.R. Enclave, Delhi. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the concept of the building plans proposal at its meeting held on May 16, 2024, specific observations were given.
3. The building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized along with the replies submitted by the Architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Unsuitable Letter No. OL-08052427021 dated May 24, 2024. Based on the replies submitted and the revised 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) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

c) All service equipment, plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, 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.

Found conceptually suitable (not limited to these observations).
'The conceptual suitability is only with reference to the mandate of the Commission. However, it would be reassessed at the formal stage based on the 20-point criteria as available on the DUAC website. It would not be a substitute for formal approval of the proposal referred through the concerned local body in terms of section 12 of the DUAC Act, 1973.

Building plans proposal in respect of Residential building at 2793-2794, part, Mohalla Niyaariyan, G.B. Road, Delhi-110006. (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 Commission's available record. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal (Formal) at its meeting held on April 05, 2024 and did not accept the concept of the building plans proposal at its meeting held on May 16, 2024 and April 25, 2024, specific observations were made.
3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Unsuitable Letter No.: OL-11052427024 dated May 24, 2024. Based on 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: OL-11052427024 dated May 24, 2024, unsatisfactory compliances for the same has been given.

b) The Commission observed that the proposal is being reviewed the fourth time without significant adherence to its previous observations, which is not appreciated. 

c) It was noticed that the same room (bed-room) has three windows all of which are different in sizes, sill levels etc. which do not give a pleasant visual appearance (3D view), need to be relooked at. 

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

e) All service equipment, plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, 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 address all the Commission's observations above, including those communicated in the previous 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.
    

Not accepted, observations given.