Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1766th meeting held on 28.06.2024.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1766th meeting held on 28.06.2024 were discussed.

1.   The North DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the revised layout plans proposal for Sir Ganga Ram Hospital at its March 23, 2011 meeting. And approved the building plans proposal in respect of additions/alterations {Hospital Building Block B1-(2B+G+8 floors) and MLCP Block- (3B+G+10 floors)} at its meeting held on March 21, 2014, specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal (Formal) for additions/alterations (additions of two floors over the existing Hospital block B-1(2B+G+8 floors)) was approved at its meeting held on November 2, 2023, and specific observations were given.
4. The NOC for the Completion proposal (Part for Hospital Building Block B-1), received online at the completion stage, was scrutinized alongside observations made during the formal stage approval, as communicated in DUAC approval letter no: F.No. 23(79)/2023-DUAC, OL-26102323079 dated November 03, 2023. Based on these formal stage observations and the submission for NOC for completion, which includes drawings, documents, and photographs of the complex, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the proposal is at the completion stage, yet an adequate number of uncut photographs of the built structure are lacking. Specifically, photographs of the basement, terrace showcasing provisions for solar panels, air conditioning mechanisms, water tanks, and other utilities, including their screening mechanisms, have not been included in the submission.

b) An adequate number of uncut photographs of the actual built construction (including terrace, solar panels) for which the NOC is required, along with proper labelling/delineation, have not been provided to substantiate the work executed at the site. Uncut and clear photographs from all sides of the completed superstructure (for which the NOC for completion is required) should be provided, with appropriate labelling and delineation, to substantiate the actual work executed.

c) Reference photographs of the artwork have been included in the submission; however, at the completion stage, it is required to provide an actual artwork executed at the site, which is currently missing from the submission. A public art installation of suitable scale for the context, visible from outside the site, should be proposed using an appropriate medium/theme, in accordance with point no. 14 of the CPAA (Criteria for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

d) According to the submitted parking statement, it is indicated that 989 ECS have been provided, exceeding the required 937 ECS. However, clarity and photographs regarding the location and fulfilment of these parking requirements has not been provided.

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.

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

1.  The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on August 06, 2002. The Commission accepted the NOC for Completion (Part – Auditorium Block) at its meeting held on July 23, 2021.
3. The Commission accepted the concept of building plans proposal for additions/alterations (addition of new Block comprising G+4 floors) at its meeting held on April 5, 2024; specific observations were given.
4.   The revised plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized, along with the previous observations of the Commission Communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Suitable letter no: OL-18032427012 dated 10.04.2024, 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 observations given at the conceptual stage, 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 formal stage and has been resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing the previous observations outlined in the DUAC Conceptually Suitable letter no: OL-18032427012 dated 10.04.2024. It appears that the same submission has been submitted at the formal stage, which is not appreciated.

b) The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations (addition of a new block comprising ground+4 floors), it did not consider and cover the existing construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

c) The Commission observed that the existing primary Block is slated for demolition, with the new proposed primary Block set to be constructed in the front courtyard of the existing primary school.

d) It is reiterated that:

"……..The brick Jaali proposed for screening on the ground floor appears unstable at the edges with two-thirds of bricks projecting. On impact to exposed edge the bricks are likely to get dislodged and the brick jalis could fall apart. It would be better to have a solid vertical edge to brick jalis. Current configuration is not advised…."

e) The existing buildings within the school campus should be thoroughly documented with photographs, including those of the existing basement, to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current conditions.

f) The proposal lacks clarity on the requisite parking requirements (current + proposed). The parking plan needs to be detailed, i.e., it needs to mark the location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. in the parking lot. Existing parking and the parking from additional FAR (proposed) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with a bifurcation of two.

g) While it is acknowledged that most classrooms may not currently require air conditioning, provisions should be made in the design to accommodate potential future additions without compromising the building's facade aesthetics. A detailed scheme must be submitted at this stage to illustrate the placement, screening, and materials used for outdoor units, depicted clearly in plans, elevations, and 3D views.

h) The work of art proposed on the façade may be relooked at. The work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, including sculptures etc., 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.

i) 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.

j) 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.

5. The Architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations the Commission gave and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1.  The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2.  The building plans 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 submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the proposal is at the formal stage, but discrepancies were observed in the submission. It has been indicated that the basement is planned for parking; however, no vehicular accessibility to the basement has been provided.

b) Similarly, the toilets, kitchen, and balconies have been planned without consideration for the screening of plumbing pipes, which could detract from the visual aesthetics of the façade. These elements should be reviewed with an appropriate screening mechanism.

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, 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.

3.   The Architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations the Commission gave and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

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 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 submission made, and the discussion held (online), the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The Commission observed that the majority of the requisite car parking requirements have been accommodated in the basement, with only a few in the front setback. This area was suggested to be converted into a landscaped permeable green space, reducing hard surfaces to prevent flooding and enhance groundwater recharge.

b) Two large columns have been provided to support the sixth floor at a height of 23.25 meters. However, the submission lacks details such as the base, capital, and termination points. These elements should be clearly detailed to understand their aesthetic appeal to the campus.

c) Two ramps have been provided for vehicular access to the basement, both of which appear to be covered with a flat, concrete-like roof structure. It was suggested that the covering be redesigned using aesthetically pleasing transparent/translucent materials such as glass etc. to enhance the visual appeal of the campus.

d) The area accommodating the DG set, transformers etc. shall be suitably screened, including DG exhaust pipes, using appropriate architectural mechanisms so as not to remain visible, and mar the aesthetics of the complex. The design scheme shall be elucidated with relevant details for judicious review by the Commission.

e) The font sizes of the signage displaying the university's name and title on the boundary wall near the main gate should be made smaller and proportional to the installation area, and the comma between "College" and "Delhi" should be removed. “DWARKA” should be in smaller font than main name font size.

f) The cafeteria and kitchen have been included without relevant details, such as the capacity and furniture layout of the cafeteria. A detailed plan that shows the kitchen's servicing and a solid waste management plan to demonstrate effective disposal means for dry and wet waste must be provided.

g) The provisions for the requisite car parking in the basement are not clearly understood, as the bays are blank. The basement plan should clearly indicate the parking details, including the number of cars, their locations, and the car movement pattern, to understand its efficient functioning better.

h) The work of art envisaged on the façade above at the sixth and the seventh floor (on the right side) to be relooked at, and the 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.

i) 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.

j) 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.

3. 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.

1. The DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on September 22, 1995, and accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on August 31, 2001, respectively. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on November 6, 2019; specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion (Part-for the additions/alteration approved formally in the meeting held on 06.11.2019) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinized alongside observations made during the formal stage approval, as communicated in DUAC approval letter no: OL-25101922048 dated November 11, 2019. Based on these formal stage observations and the submission received for NOC for completion (part), which includes drawings, documents, and photographs of the complex, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that specific observations were provided when approving the case for additions and alterations at its meeting on November 6, 2019, as communicated in DUAC Observation Letter No: OL-25101922048 dated November 11, 2019. However, these observations appear to have remained unaddressed when submitting the case for NOC for completion (Part), which is not appreciated.

b) The Commission observed that the site photographs reveal exposed rainwater pipes, outdoor air conditioning units, and temporary coverings that detract from the aesthetics of the building façade. It was also observed that only a few building blocks have been photographed, the proposal being at the Completion stage, need to submit annotated photographs of the building block (for which NOC is required) from all sides for the review of the Commission.

c) The Commission stressed that in order to obtain the NOC for completion, the building must adequately screen all exposed pipes, designate screened spaces for outdoor air conditioning units, and remove all temporary coverings from the balconies.

4. In view of its observations (given at the formal approval) remained non-compliant at the completion stage, the Commission could not appreciate the proposal. 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. Earlier, the Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 02, 2004 and the Commission accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on June 05, 2007.
3. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on October 9, 2020; specific observations were given.
4. The proposal for NOC for Completion (Part-inaccessible projection with metal railing, MS staircase, removal of the kitchen in guest annexe only) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinized and a discussion was held with the Architect (online) on Cisco WebEx meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission made for NOC for completion, including drawings/documentation/photographs of the complex, and the discussion held online, the proposal for NOC for Completion (Part-inaccessible projection with metal railing, MS staircase, removal of kitchen in guest annexe only) is found to be accepted.

1. The NDMC 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 Commission noted that the proposal is at the formal stage. However, elements such as photographs depicting the area and site from different angles, as well as the surrounding urban context, were found missing from the submission. The Architect indicated in the proforma the presence of "residential bungalows with garage & servant rooms" under "existing development," yet no supporting details such as photographs, demolition plans, or survey details etc. were included in the submission. The proposal at this stage must be comprehensive, encompassing all necessary drawings, documentation, and relevant information for the Commission to review.

b) The Commission observed that the proposal cannot be studied in isolation i.e. it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities. Therefore, 3D views (including nighttime views) of the site shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings, including road network structures around the site, for a better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.

c) The Commission observed that the proposed building has been designed with intricate architectural elements on the facade; however, the submitted sections do not adequately display the detailed architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, and other pertinent features. The sections need to be detailed. Comprehensive skin sections should be provided to offer a detailed understanding of the façade's elevation, including the materials used. These detailed elements are essential for an architectural design and façade overview.

d) It was observed that 163 ECS parking spaces have been accommodated in a single basement, achieving a FAR of 131 (permissible: 225) of the plot area. It is observed that the site may not meet the full FSI parking requirements. It is recommended that the proposed parking design should account for future needs, considering the full FSI requirements.

e) Also, the submission lacks the location details of other utilities, such as water tanks, solar panels, air-conditioning systems, DG sets, and DG exhaust pipes, which could affect the visual and urban aesthetics of the complex. There is ample space available on the terraces to accommodate these utilities appropriately. It is necessary to revise the plans, elevations, 3D views, and sections to include their locations and then resubmit the proposal.

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) as 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.

3. Overall, due to the incompleteness and lack of clarity in the submission received at the formal stage, the proposal 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. On the occasion of the 46th World Heritage Committee Meeting, scheduled to be held from July 21, 2024, to July 31, 2024, in New Delhi, the Chief Architect of NDMC, via email dated July 11, 2024, has forwarded a proposal for art installations prepared by the National Gallery of Modern Art (NGMA) and Lalit Kala Academy (LKA) for the Commission's consideration.

A. The proposed art installations, identified by the National Gallery of Modern Art (NGMA) for specific locations, were reviewed:

i) Rotary No-27, Bhagat Singh Park

ii) Rotary No-09, Sunhari Bagh

iii) Rotary No-13, Cemetery Roundabout

B. The proposed art installations, identified by the Lalit Kala Academy (LKA) for specific locations, were reviewed:

i) Mandi house roundabout

ii) Leela hotel, Chanakyapuri roundabout

2. A comprehensive discussion took place with their respective representatives, who addressed the Commission's queries. The following common observations, applicable to the artworks presented by both NGMA and LKA, are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the design scheme was presented in isolation, without consideration of its impact on the overall urban aesthetics of the area. The actual scale and materiality were not clearly presented.

b) The proposal includes a sculpture for the roundabout at Rotary Bhagat Singh Park. However, the submission features a reference image of the roundabout with an imposed image of the proposed sculpture, resulting in a misleading representation of the roundabout's proportions. The proportions in the map and the 3D view do not match, creating inconsistency in the submission. The sculpture should be placed in the actual site context, with the surroundings in the background, to explain the scheme more clearly.

c) Photographs of the areas designated for the artwork installation have not been submitted. These photographs, including the surrounding urban context at the actual scale, need to be provided for a better understanding by the Commission.

d) Large-scale details of the base/pedestal supporting the artwork, including the sculpture in plan, elevation, and sections, with the orientation of the sculpture (i.e., the direction it is facing) should be provided to explain the proportions clearly. This should also include details on materials, design, form, and surrounding landscaping features.

e) Views from all sides, including the top view, should be included in the submission to review the proposal from all perspectives. If the sculpture is proposed to have lighting effects, details of the lighting should also be provided, including cross-sections showing its working and maintenance mechanisms, materiality, and luminaire specifications.

f) The sculpture's colour scheme and a colour palette should be included in the submission to ensure clarity.

III.    Rotary 13, Cemetery Roundel:

a) The proposal includes gates and fencing within the boundary of the rotary, which the Commission does not approve. The rotary is a public space; fencing it off should not be encouraged.

b) Large-scale details of the base/pedestal supporting the artwork, including the sculpture in plan, elevation, and sections, with the orientation of the sculpture (i.e., the direction it is facing) should be provided to explain the proportions clearly. This should also include details on materials, design, form, and surrounding landscaping features.

c) Views from all sides, including the top view, should be included in the submission to review the proposal from all perspectives. If the sculpture is proposed to have lighting effects, details of the lighting should also be provided, including cross-sections showing its working and maintenance mechanisms, materiality, and luminaire specifications.

3. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage for the Installation of Artwork at various rotaries within the NDMC area lacks clarity and comprehensiveness, requiring further improvements and additional details. 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.