Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1764th meeting held on 13.06.2024.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1764th meeting held on 13.06.2024 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.The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal (formal) at its meeting held on May 24, 2024, where specific observations were made.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized, along with the previous observations of the Commission Communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-21052455093, F.no. 55(93)/2024-DUAC dated 29.05.2024, 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 revised submission made, and the discussion held (online), the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The Commission observed that the proposal is currently at the formal stage and has been resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing the previous observations outlined in the DUAC Observation Letter OL-21052455093, F. No. 55(93)/2024-DUAC dated 29.05.2024, particularly those related to providing alternative requisite parking requirements for the project with full FSI.

b) It is again reiterated that the submission pertains to a new building with a proposed FAR of 48% of the plot area and a ground coverage of 24.03% of the plot area, thus not utilizing the full FAR and leaving room for future expansion. The current submission indicates parking provisions on the surface and within the proposed MLCP block, but it is unclear how the parking will be distributed across the site. The revised submission should include complete parking calculations, complete requisite details of MLCP block (including plans/elevations/sections/3D views/circulation/screening/mechanism etc.) updated parking locations marked on the respective layout plans, and 3D views showing all parking-related details.

c) To mitigate the heat island effect and prevent issues like urban flooding, the Commission strongly recommends containing the vast majority of the required parking within the footprint of the building by relocating parking to stilt levels and  basements, and with rare exceptions due to constraining factors, to MLCPs. Surface parking is strongly discouraged. The space gained by eliminating surface parking should be used for soft green spaces to help recharge aquifers and prevent urban flooding conditions.

d) 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.

e) 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.

f) 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.

4. Overall, due to non-compliances to its previous observations the proposal received at the formal stage could not be appreciated by the Commission. The Architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations above including communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-21052455093, F. No. 55(93)/2024-DUAC dated 29.05.2024 and 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 plan proposal at its meeting held on October 24, 1985. The Commission accepted the NOC for completion at its meeting held on September 04, 1998.
3. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (addition/extension in the balcony area, extension of toilet/wc) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, 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 Commission noted that the submission is at the formal stage and 3d views envisaging the proposed addition/alterations are missing in the submission thus depicting an incomplete submission which is not appreciated by the Commission. The submission shall be complete in all respect before submitting the case for the consideration of the Commission including an appropriate number of annotated 3d views showing the proposed additions/alterations along with the materiality.

c) The submitted site photographs do not clearly indicate the required details. An appropriate number of site pictures including from roof tops of the existing set-backs to understand the availability of the set-back spaces to accommodate more parking required shall be provided. They need to be submitted with proper uncut views from all sides.

d) 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.

e) 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, due to incompleteness of the proposal received at the formal stage, it could not be appreciated by the Commission. 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 DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on October 08, 2007, specific observations were given. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for addition/alteration at its meeting held on July 05, 2017.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on May 18, 2023 where specific observations were made.
4. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinized along with the previous observations of the Commission Communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-11052348013 dated 23.05.2023. and a 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 is currently at the completion stage and has been resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing the previous observations outlined in the DUAC Observation Letter OL-11052348013 dated 23.05.2023.

b) 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.

c) Uncut, clear, and accurate photographs from all sides of the completed superstructure 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.

d) The submission shows cropped photographs of stack parking in only one basement only, whereas all three basements have stack parking arrangements including utilities uncut photographs of the same shall require to be submitted with annotations to understand the existing site conditions better. 

e) 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.

f) 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.

g) 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.

5. Due to the insufficient information provided for the proposal at the completion stage, including the lack of actual photographs of the built construction at the site, the Commission could not fully appreciate the proposal. 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 NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on December 11, 2020, specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinized and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission made for NOC for completion including drawings/documentations/photographs of the complex, and the discussion held online the proposal for NOC for Completion is found to be accepted.

1. The DIAL forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on October 16, 2019 but did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on June 13, 2024, specific observations were given.
3. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion 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-04062466001 dated 18.06.2024.  Based on the submission, the proposal for NOC for Completion is found acceptable.

Buildings plan proposal in respect of Multi-storeyed Academic Tower at Zakir Husain Delhi College, University of Delhi. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the Revised layout plan at its meeting held on January 23, 2015 and approved the building plans proposal (Formal) at its meeting held on December 16, 2015.
3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized, The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect online, but the architect was not available for discussion. Based on the submission made and the absence of online discussion, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The submission is made at the conceptual stage, but proposal with site photographs of the completed building structures have been submitted. Whereas the submitted drawings mention proposed floor plans, elevations, sections and 3d views thus making it unclear the intent of the submission. 

4. Due to lack of clarity, the submission could not be appreciated judiciously by the Commission and thus the architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and 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, and May 24, 2024 meetings, respectively, 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 replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Unsuitable Letter No.: OL-20052427025 dated May 29, 2024. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect online, but the architect was not available for discussion. Based on the submission made and the absence of 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 (addition of three floors above an existing building and a new MLCP block) only.

b) The Commission observed that the proposal is currently at the conceptual stage and has been reviewed thrice by the Commission without satisfactorily addressing the previous observations outlined in the DUAC Observation Letter No. OL-20052427025 dated May 29, 2024 which is not appreciated. The architect should address all the observations of the Commission satisfactorily.

c) The proposed new block sits parallel to the existing hospital block in the campus. The submitted elevations and 3d views do not show sufficient harmony in the façades of existing and proposed blocks.

d) Also, the proposed elevation does not look aesthetically pleasing, with little thought to architectural detailing. It does not seem to have mechanisms for shade from sun, rain and other extreme weather conditions which is likely to cause damage to the building during harsh conditions. Along with, instead of texture paints, other more durable materials can be used in the façade instead.

e) The vertical members shown in the proposed 3d views are missing in the proposed elevation, thus showing inconsistencies in the submission.

f) The layout plans are incorrectly drawn at places i.e. columns overlap with windows thus presenting wrong information and poor quality of submission. The same shall be improved and resubmitted. 

g) 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.

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.

5. Because of non-compliance with the Commission's previous detailed observations, which were provided twice before, and due to insufficient clarity in this submission, the Commission could not appreciate it judiciously.  Therefore, the architect is strongly advised to address all previously mentioned observations, including those reiterated above, and to submit a comprehensive response that clearly addresses each point raised by the Commission in a detailed and systematic manner.
    

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approve the building plans proposal (Formal) at its meeting held on November 13, 2019.
3. The building plan proposal for additions & alterations and upgradation of façade received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The entire proposal shall adhere to all the norms/regulations of the prevailing LBZ guidelines.

b) The proposed stone cladding material as per the submission is Udaipur green/Baroda green which generally sees its coloration fade with weathering over time.  If the intention is to maintain the new look, it could be considered to use green granite as the finishing material instead.

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.