Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1765th meeting held on 20.06.2024.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1765th meeting held on 20.06.2024 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 meetings held on March 14, 2024 and April 18, 2024 respectively. The Commission did not accept the concept of the building plans proposal at its meeting held on May 16, 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 Conceptually Unsuitable letter no: OL-09052427023 dated 24.05.2024. 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 the proposal is currently at the formal stage and has been resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing the previous observations outlined in the DUAC Observation Letter No. OL-09052427023 dated 24.05.2024 which is not appreciated. The architect should address all the observations of the Commission satisfactorily.

b) Furthermore, inconsistencies were observed in the submission, as the 3D views do not match the floor plans. Specifically, the proportions of the windows shown in the floor plans appear smaller than those in the 3D views. This discrepancy needs to be addressed, and a revised, coordinated submission (including plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views) should be provided for the Commission's consideration.

c) 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.

d) 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. 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.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2.  Earlier, the Commission approved the building plan proposal (for 2basements+G+14 floors) at its meeting held on July 03, 2020 and revised building plan proposal (for 2basements+G+20 floors) at its meeting held on December 09, 2021.
3. The revised building plans proposal (Two towers, each of 2 basements + G + 15 floors) received (online) at the formal stage. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The Commission noted that the proposal is at the formal stage, but the overall design scheme is not sufficiently clear. Specifically, all the doors on the ground floor open outward without any steps at various entrances, including the banquet hall and lobby areas, making the overall design appear sketchy and incomplete.

b) Similarly, two levels of basements are planned to meet the project's car parking requirements, but the parking matrix (no. of permissible parking and achieved) has not been provided, making it difficult to understand the parking capacity in each area. The submission also does not specify whether stack parking is included in the basement to meet the parking needs. Detailed floor plans, sections, and calculations should be submitted to provide more clarity in the submission.

c) Additionally, the vehicular access to the two-level basements is planned through a single ramp. Given its location and the vehicular circulation pattern, this solution seems insufficiently envisaged. It should be reconsidered, and an alternative, more practical solution without vehicular conflicts should be devised and presented with enlarged details to understand the proposal better.

d) A large banquet hall and a restaurant are included in the Community Centre, but the submission lacks details on functional furniture arrangement, serviceability with the kitchen, column placement, structural arrangement, and capacity. These elements must be detailed appropriately in the submission. Additionally, the structural elements, including columns, should be clearly indicated in the respective plans.

e) The plumbing shafts shown on the first floor should carryon on the ground floor as well, the same appears to have been missed in the proposal. Similarly, the plumbing shafts for toilets and the kitchen on the ground floor are not indicated. These should be clearly marked to ensure understanding of the plumbing layout, with pipes concealed within the shafts to preserve the aesthetics of the facade.

f) The main gate and boundary wall have been depicted separately without necessary details including materiality, lacking coherence in their design. These elements can significantly impact the overall aesthetics of the area. Detailed information regarding gate/grill details, material application, and their coordination with plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views shall be submitted for better understanding.

g) Further, very basic elevations & sections have been submitted. The elevations and sections (detailed sections, including longitudinal and cross-sections that encompass the entire site, through the green areas) must be meticulously detailed, clearly showcasing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, and other pertinent features. Additionally, submit comprehensive skin sections that provide a detailed understanding of the facade's elevation, including the materials employed. By providing these detailed elements, a comprehensive overview of the architectural design and facade can be obtained.

h) The architectural form, features, and elements envisioned above the terrace are not comprehensible. These details should be elucidated with all necessary details, including material specifications etc.

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) 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. Overall, the submission received at the formal stage is very sketchy, without comprehensive details, lacks clarity in explaining the complete design scheme and parking matrix etc. The proposal could not be reviewed judiciously by the Commission. 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.  Earlier, the Commission approved the building plan at its meeting held on December 01, 2018 but did not approve the revised building plan proposal (formal) at its meeting held on May 09, 2024.
3. The revised building plans received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission Communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-06052455090 dated 16.05.2024. Based on the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The Commission noted that while the proposal is at the formal stage, the overall design scheme appears sketchy and unclear. A detailed ground floor plan integrating the club area, internal layout, and column arrangement etc. should be submitted. The drop-off areas in the ground floor plan also seem incomplete, including porch areas and steps leading to the ground floor level. All such details should be duly incorporated into the submission.

b) Two levels of basements are planned to meet the project's car parking requirements, but the parking matrix (no. of permissible parking and achieved) has not been provided, making it difficult to understand the parking capacity in each area. The submission also does not specify whether stack parking is included in the basement to meet the parking needs. Detailed floor plans, sections, and calculations should be submitted to provide more clarity in the submission.

c) Furthermore, only very basic elevations and just one section provided for the entire project. Additional sections, particularly those cutting through the green areas, are required to ensure the correlation of open spaces with the building.

d) The elevations and sections (including detailed longitudinal and cross-sections encompassing the entire site and green areas) must be meticulously detailed to clearly showcase the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, and other pertinent features. Additionally, comprehensive skin sections should be submitted to provide a detailed understanding of the facade's elevation, including the materials used. These detailed elements will provide a thorough overview of the architectural design and facade.

e) The plumbing shafts on the ground floor are not indicated. These should be clearly marked to ensure understanding of the plumbing layout, with pipes concealed within the shafts to preserve the aesthetics of the facade. Provision of rainwater pipes and rainwater harvesting is unclear in the submission.

f) The main gate and boundary wall have been depicted separately without necessary details including materiality, lacking coherence in their design. These elements can significantly impact the overall aesthetics of the area. Detailed information regarding gate/grill details, material application, and their coordination with plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views shall be submitted for better understanding.

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) 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.

i) 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, the submission received at the formal stage is very sketchy, without comprehensive details, lacks clarity in explaining the complete design scheme and parking matrix etc. The proposal could not be reviewed judiciously by the Commission. 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 NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on July 03, 2020 and approved the revised building plans proposal at its meeting held on February 24, 2022.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion (Block-1 and Block-2) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinized and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online. Based on the discussion held online, submission made including drawings/documentations/photographs etc. the proposal for NOC for Completion is found to be accepted.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on July 03, 2019, where specific observations were made.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinized, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online. Based on the submission made and the discussion held online, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Photographs of the main gate are missing in the submission. As the main gate abuts the approach road and forms the first impression of the building, clear uncut photographs of the same are required so as the Commission is able to appreciate the submission judiciously.

b) Photographs of terrace showing provision of solar panels, air conditioning units, water tanks and other utilities along with their screening mechanism are missing in the submission.

4. The proposal received at the completion stage lacks adequate documentation, including actual photographs of the built construction of the entire site. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

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 December 22, 1995 and revised the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on February 29, 2012.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion 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 Commission noted that the completion certificate for the project has not yet been obtained.

b) The submission is unclear, and from the drawings, documentation, and 3D views of the model, it appears that the proposal has been received for only part-completion (marked in red as completed), which creates a misleading impression. The Commission intended to clarify this with the architect online, but due to his unavailability, this could not be verified.

4. Due to the insufficient information provided for the proposal at the completion stage, including whether the project is for part or full completion, the Commission could not appreciate the proposal. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the Comprehensive redevelopment plan of Lady Hardinge Medical College and Residential Housing Complex at Bhagat Sing Marg at its meeting held on February 02, 2011.
3. The building plans received (online) at the formal 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 revised submission made, and the discussion held (online), the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The proposal part of a large campus with numerous surrounding developments. The architect mentioned that various facilities, including parking arrangements, are being shared. The Commission wishes to understand the current overall parking requirements of the campus and their tentative locations, as well as the specific parking requirements of the current proposal (based on the full FSI of the proposal). This information is would help to fully comprehend the current and future parking needs and how they will be met. The details should be clearly marked on the layout along with parking calculations.

b) The Commission noted that most of the parking in the submission is provided on the surface, which increases hard surfaces and contributes to flooding and prevents ground water recharge. To mitigate this, it is recommended that maximum car parking be accommodated in the basement, either by expanding the basement footprint or increasing the basement height to allow for double or triple stack parking.

c) The spaces freed by relocating parking to the basement should be transformed into green areas to enhance water percolation to the water table. Moreover, green spaces should be integrated into the remaining surface parking areas. The submission must detail the ratio of soft areas to hard areas to reduce hard surfaces on the site. Additionally, it should clearly outline the distribution of parking percentages between surface and basement levels.

d) Only one elevation and a section has been provided in the proposal received at the formal stage, submission should have elevations from all the sides. The elevations and sections (including detailed longitudinal and cross-sections encompassing the entire site) must be meticulously detailed to clearly showcase the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, and other pertinent features. Additionally, comprehensive skin sections should be submitted to provide a detailed understanding of the facade's elevation, including the materials used. These detailed elements will provide a thorough overview of the architectural design and facade.

e) Utilities such as DG sets, generators, etc., should be clearly labelled in the respective layout plans and 3D views, along with detailing their screening mechanisms.

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) 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, 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, the submission received at the formal stage need to be relooked at from providing parking by without disturbing the open green surfaces. 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 at its March 4, 1999, meeting and accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on November 22, 2005. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its March 28, 2024, meeting, specific observations were made.
3. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (addition of one bedroom, toilet, extension of utility room and balconies in each unit, extension of community hall) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission Communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-22032422093, F. No. 22(93)/2024-DUAC dated 02.04.2024. Based on the revised 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) It must be ensured that all temporary coverings, outdoor air conditioning units, and plumbing pipes are either removed or appropriately screened to maintain the aesthetics of the façade which shall be reviewed at the time of receiving the proposal at the completion stage.

c) The added structure shall be such designed that it withstands weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquake etc. as it is an additional structure added to the existing superstructure. It shall be ensured it is braced firmly to the building and does not impact the safety of the superstructure.

d) All requisite parking shall be as per applicable norms/regulations etc.

e) 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.

f) 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.

1. he DDA forwarded the proposal (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on May 31, 2002 and subsequently accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on February 11, 2009. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its May 16, 2024, meeting, specific observations were made.
3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (extension of bedroom, kitchen and addition of servant room, toilet and balconies) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission Communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-10052422096, F.No. 22(96)/2024-DUAC dated 24.05.2024.  Based on the revised 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) It must be ensured that all temporary coverings, outdoor air conditioning units, and plumbing pipes are either removed or appropriately screened to maintain the aesthetics of the façade which shall be reviewed at the time of receiving the proposal at the completion stage.

c) The added structure shall be such designed that it withstands weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquake etc. as it is an additional structure added to the existing superstructure. It shall be ensured it is braced firmly to the building and does not impact the safety of the superstructure.

d) All requisite parking shall be as per applicable norms/regulations etc.

e) 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.

f) All water tanks, plumbing pipes, rainwater 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.

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, April 25, 2024 and June 13, 2024 respectively, 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-10062427032 dated 18.06.2024. Based on the submission made, 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.
 

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 7-34 (Municipal No 11-4526-27) Ansari Road, Daryaganj. (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.
3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposed stone cladding on the façade appears to be cluttered and should be simplified in terms of pattern, colour, and design. The patterns on the façade should be minimized to ensure harmony with the other materials, including the grey stone.

b) The 3D view of the terrace appears to be missing the provision of solar panels. These should be duly incorporated, along with their screening mechanism, to ensure the submission is complete.

c) 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.

d) 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. 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.

Not accepted, Observations given

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 July 23, 2018.
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, the proposal for NOC for Completion is found to be accepted.