1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1763rd meeting held on 05.06.2024 were discussed.

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 April 25, 2024 but accepted the concept of building plans proposal at its meeting held on May 30, 2024, where specific observations were made.
3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It is suggested to provide exit doors to outside of building in all staircases at the ground floor level to ensure safety of users. 

b) The design proposal incorporates provisions for double stack parking arrangements to meet the necessary parking requirements. Nevertheless, it is for the architect or proponent to ensure the proper implementation of these arrangements on-site, which will be examined during the proposal's completion stage. It is important that all parking arrangements adhere to the relevant rules, regulations, guidelines, and other applicable requirements.

c) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, shall ensure to be installed in terms of 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) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

e) All service equipment, rainwater pipes, water tanks, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, transformers, 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.

1. The PWD-GNCTD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve building plans proposal in respect of c/o Gamma Knife Lab in Neurosurgery Department, GIPMER at its meeting held on January 18, 2024, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission Communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-10012461011 dated 23.01.2024. 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) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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.

Buildings plan proposal for additions and alterations in respect of Bal Bharti School, Sector 12, Dwarka. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 10, 2000, and the NOC for completion plan approval was given in the meeting of the Commission held on February 12, 2008. The revised layout and building plan proposal was approved in the meeting of the Commission held on May 07, 2014. The NOC for completion (third floor only) was accepted by the Commission at its June 25, 2021, meeting.
3. The building plans proposal for additions and alteration (addition of classrooms from first to third floor) received (online) at the conceptual 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 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 proposal includes the addition of two classrooms on each of the first to third floors and the provision of double stack parking at ground level following the demolition of an existing stage facing the playground area. This parking arrangement appears to conflict with the pedestrian (student) movement between the main school building and the playground, raising safety concerns for students. It is recommended to relocate the additional parking (resulting from the additional FAR) to another area to ensure it does not interfere with pedestrian movement or pose a safety risk.

c) The addition of classrooms above, and addition of double stack behind the principal's office and the conference room would obstruct light and ventilation for the existing sections of the building, including the staircase. To address these issues, an appropriate number of windows opening to an external wall should be provided. Additionally, the 3D views should clearly demonstrate how the existing windows in various areas, including staircases and rooms, which are blocked by the proposed addition, will be relocated or adjusted to maintain proper ventilation. This should also include the current placement of outdoor air conditioning units serving the principal's office and laboratories.

d) Acute corners present in the proposed design should be avoided as they create unusable negative spaces. To maximize space utilization, these corners should be straightened wherever possible.

e) Additionally, with the proposed demolition of the existing stage to make way for double stack parking, an alternative location must be identified for student assemblies and other such school activities.

f) An adequate number of annotated 3D views of the proposed block shall be provided. These views should clearly distinguish between the existing and proposed structures, including all modifications, for the Commission's review.

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, 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. 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.

Buildings plan proposal for additions and alterations in respect of Gyan Bharati School, Saket, Malviya Nagar Road, New Delhi – 110017. (Conceptual Stage)

1. he proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the NOC for completion plans proposal was accepted by the Commission at its meeting held on August 31, 2016. The Commission approved the proposal for additions and alterations (addition of two floors in Block 2 (G+1 floor) and addition of Block 5 (B+G+4 floors)) at its meeting held on September 08, 2018, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal for additions and alterations (Extension of Block 4 – B+G+3 Floors) received at Conceptual 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 revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case it did not consider and cover the existing construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) The proposal is for new block of B+G+3 floors to accommodate additional classrooms. It has been observed by the Commission that the proposed road to access the surface and basement parking is causing conflict between the pedestrian movement from the main blocks to the playground, and thus could become a safety concern for students.

c) The design for the same shall be reworked in a way that the additional parking is either accommodated in a MLCP, located around the existing parking parallel to the 45.0m road or the parking be designed in such a manner that the access road does not cut through the main block and playground to ensure safety of the users.

d) The existing and proposed surface parking is not shown in the 3d views. An appropriate number of annotated 3d views to be submitted, highlighting facades from all sides and showing details including solar panels at terrace along with screening mechanism, parking and other proposed utilities (if any).

e) Existing site photographs of the area where the proposed building will come up, needs to be provided in the submission to provide clarity about the site context.

f) One of the 3d view shows a bridge connecting the two blocks at the 2^nd and 3^rd level. The same has not been shown in the respective floor plans thus the connections i.e. entry/exit are not clearly understood. The same to be marked on the floor plans along with the connections and additional number of 3d views with annotations (including materials) to be submitted to give a clearer picture of the connecting bridge.

g) The submission lacks details on the structural arrangement, specifically the location of columns in the basement, which could impact the proposed parking layout. This aspect needs to be reassessed and included in the revised submission. Additionally, the current basement parking design appears impractical, especially for cars parked near the staircases. A revised parking plan with two-three alternative options should be provided, including the structural arrangement, with clear vehicular movement paths.

h) The current floor plans are missing plumbing shafts for the toilets. These need to be designed in detail to ensure that the pipes are properly concealed and do not compromise the aesthetics of the façade.

i) 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) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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 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. The Architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations above. 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.

Buildings plan proposal for additions and alterations in respect of Commercial /Residential Building on Plot No- 1738, Ward No-VI, Bazar Lal Kuan, 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 available record of the Commission.
3. The building plan proposal for additions and alterations (alterations at ground floor and proposed first, second and third floor over existing Basement + Ground floor) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case it did not consider and cover the existing construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) The Commission noted that the site photographs provided indicates that the work has already commenced on the site without seeking approval of the Commission, which is not appreciated.

c) The vertical band running around the windows seems to be unnecessary and not of uniform sizes. The same shall be removed to improve the aesthetics of the façade.

d) Discrepancy observed in the submission, the submitted 3d views and plans show a continuous balcony in the front façade, whereas the front elevation shows a balcony divided into two parts; which need be resolved and resubmitted.

e) 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 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.

4. The Architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations above. 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.

Buildings plan proposal in respect of residential building on 479 Ward No X, Gali Bahar Wali, Chhatta Lal Mian, Daryaganj, Delhi 110002. (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 building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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 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.

ound 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.

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 Commission's available record. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal (Formal) at its meeting held on March 21, 2024 and April 18, 2024 respectively, and did not accept the concept of building plans proposal at its meeting held on May 16, 2024. Subsequently, the Commission accepted the concept of building plan proposal its June 05, 2024, meeting.
3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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.

b) 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. The 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 observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission took note that the proposal is in respect of plot no- 1204 to 1207, however, the 'Haveli on plot no- 1205-1207, Maliwara’ is a listed Grade-III heritage building at Serial No. 458 in the Gazette notification no. F. No. 13(43) MB/UD/2014/1602 dated 29.07.2016, issued by the Department of Urban Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

b) The Commission noted that construction work on site has already begun. Construction should only commence after receiving formal approval from the Commission.

c) Discrepancies have been observed in the submission received at the formal stage. Two different sets of existing ground floor plans have been provided, which do not match and create confusion. As the proposal pertains to plot no. 1204-1027, which shall be clearly marked on the drawings, considering that plot no. 1205-1207 is a listed heritage site, ensuring a clear understanding for the Commission.

d) The submitted site photographs lack clarity i.e. they do not clearly show the details of the complete façade, architectural elements and other relevant details. Uncut photographs from all sides of the building to be submitted to ensure the site context is well understood.

e) The existing ground floor plan lacks clarity as to which part concerns the proposal. The existing and proposed shall be superimposed to clearly depict the additions/alterations in the proposal.

f) The toilet shaft shown on the first floor seems to discontinue on the ground floor plan, thus showing a discrepancy. The same shall be revised and incorporated in the ground floor plan to show continuity.

g) The ground floor plan does not show details of the internal layout and the structural arrangements but is only marked as lobby. It is unclear about the use of the vast area, thus a detailed internal arrangement showing the use to be provided in the submission.

h) 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.

i) 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.

3. Overall, the submission 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.