Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1770th meeting held on 18.07.2024.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1770th meeting held on 18.07.2024 were discussed.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on July 15, 2015 and approved the revised layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held July 11, 2018.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion (Part- Tower 1 and 2) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised and a discussion was held with the architect (online), during which clarifications were provided to the Commission's queries. Based on the discussion held (online), documentation, including drawings and photographs of the complex, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that although the proposal is at the completion stage, there is a lack of adequate uncut photographs of the built structure (Tower-1 and Tower-2). Clear and uncut photographs of each tower (Tower-1 and Tower-2) from all sides, including the terrace, internal roads, landscaping, signage, main gate, boundary wall, and other elements essential for the building's functionality, should be provided with appropriate labelling and delineation to substantiate the actual work completed on site.

b) 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.

c) 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.

4. The proposal received at the completion stage (part-completion for tower 1 and 2) lacks adequate documentation, including all side uncut actual photographs of the built construction. The Architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

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 accepted concept of the building plans proposal at its meeting held on July 18, 2024, observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) 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.

b) 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.

1. The SDMC forwarded the proposal (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the concept of the building plans at its meeting held on July 04, 2024 and did not approve building plans proposal (formal) at its meeting held on July 18, 2024, specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal received at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Unsuitable letter no: OL-02072427040 dated 10.07.2024. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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.

b) 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.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on June 13, 2024, observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (addition of a third floor) 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: 55(96)/2024-DUAC, OL-05062455096 dated 18.06.2024, and a discussion was held with the architect telephonically, during which clarifications were provided to the Commission's queries. Based on the discussion held telephonically, 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 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: 55(96)/2024-DUAC, OL-05062455096 dated 18.06.2024.

c) The architect in its reply has indicated that:

“…….the proposal for additions/alterations involves adding a third floor to an existing structure comprising B+G+2…..”

While reviewing the proposal, it was found that the statement, plans, and 3D views were not in agreement with each other.

d) However, during a telephonic discussion, the architect mentioned that the overall façade of the structure would also be changed, which was not indicated in the submission. Consequently, the architect was advised to correlate and coordinate the submission (formal), including plans, elevations, and 3D views, for the Commission's better understanding.

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 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 and the inconsistencies found in the submission received at the formal stage, the proposal could not be reviewed judiciously.
5. 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 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 available record of the Commission.
3. The building plans proposal for IOCL service station received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, 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, 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) 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 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 EDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the concept of building plans proposal at its meeting held on May 16, 2024, but accepted concept of the building plans proposal at its meeting held on June 13, 2024, observations were given.
3.  The building plans proposal for demolition and reconstruction received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually acceptance letter no: OL-04062427031 dated 18.06.2024, and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Webex meetings, during which clarifications were provided to the Commission's queries. Based on the discussion held (online), and revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) Inconsistencies were observed in the submission received at the formal stage. While the double stack parking provisions were shown in the side setback to meet the required car parking requirements, these provisions appear to be missing in the proposed 3D views. Additionally, the stack parking shown in the plan does not seem functional, as it is difficult to accommodate stack parking in a parallel position. Furthermore, the double stack parking in that location would conflict with the porch which is at the 3.825 m level. The architect is advised to provide 2-3 alternate parking options to ensure the design is feasible, workable, and functional.

b) The submission includes provisions for a bus parking inside the complex. To accommodate bus entry, a sliding gate may be installed for better bus manoeuvrability, and guard room may be relocated. Additionally, the height of the porch may be relooked at. The size of the porch can also be adjusted to ensure smooth entry and exit for the bus.

c) 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, 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.

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, service equipment, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes, 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. Overall, due to the inconsistencies found in the submission received at the formal stage, the proposal could not be reviewed judiciously. 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 CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans 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 scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Approval letter no: OL-09122062043 dated 17.13.2020. Based on the documentation, including drawings and photographs, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal, submitted at the completion stage, includes 3D views showing numerous solar panels on the terrace floor. However, the actual photographs of the structure indicate that these panels have not been installed. Solar panels need to be installed on the rooftop.

b) Similarly, photographs of the basement seem to be missing. An adequate number of photographs should be submitted for the Commission's review.

4. 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.

Building plans proposal in respect of Hostel at Mata Sundri College for Women at Mandi House. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the proposal in respect of Mata Sundri College for Women at its meeting held on August 28, 1980.
3. The building plan proposal for Hostel at Mata Sundri College for Women at Mandi House received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal for the hostel at Mata Sundri College for Women, which is part of a large campus, was submitted without sufficient context regarding its surroundings. The existing development on the site is not adequately captured. The architectural vocabulary, elements, and forms of the existing development need to be understood before reviewing the elements of the current submission.

b) The submitted 3D views are insufficient, with only two side views have provided.  Annotated 3D views, including bird's-eye perspectives and details of the façade materiality, should be superimposed with the existing context, including road networks and surrounding structures, for better understanding of the proposal.

c) The kitchen exhaust mechanism, plumbing arrangement, and capacity of the cafeteria, including its functional furniture arrangement, as well as that of the typical rooms, should be provided to understand their operational efficiency.

d) As this is a hostel building, the balconies should be screened for drying clothes, and all air-conditioners must be appropriately screened to avoid visible impact on the aesthetics of the façade. A design scheme addressing these aspects should be submitted for the Commission's review.

e) The terrace has vacant spaces that could be utilized for utilities such as water tanks and solar panels. These should be incorporated into the plans, elevations, 3D views, and sections, with their locations clearly indicated, and then resubmitted.

f) The elevations and sections must be such detailed, clearly showcasing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, and other pertinent features. Additionally, it is crucial to submit comprehensive skin sections that provide a detailed understanding of the facade's elevation, including the materials employed.

g) Parking plan appears to be missing in the submission. The parking plan needs to be detailed, i.e., it needs to mark the location of no. of cars, car movement patterns, etc. to have a clear understanding of the parking.  The surface parking is being discouraged by the Commission to prevent flooding and improving ground water recharge.

h) The campus is already functional, and the pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the site be elucidated appropriately. A combined mobility circulation plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plans from outside to the various buildings is to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site better. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement.

i) A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) supposed to be generated in the complex, a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location on the site plan be submitted.

j) The landscaped plan appears to be missing in the submission. They shall be submitted in the respective drawings and shall indicate the details of the trees planted, existing trees, levels, and types of species on an appropriate scale, (in terms of the point nos. Six of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

k) 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.

l) All water tanks, rainwater pipes, plumbing pipes, service equipment, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes, 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. 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.

Building plans proposal in respect of Residential building at 4596-2B1, Gali no. 11, Daryaganj. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal was deferred.

Revised Building plan proposal in respect of Local shopping complex at plot no. 1, LSC, Karkardooma Institutional area. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on March 27, 2019, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the structure on site, which appears to be constructed based on the previous approval given in its meeting on March 27, 2019, is to be demolished. It was also observed that the current design scheme has been completely revised.

b) The submitted 3D views are insufficient and incorrect, as they do not capture the planned facilities (guard room, fire control room, etc.) in the setbacks, with only two side views given. Annotated 3D views, including bird's-eye perspectives, drop-off areas, main entry, pedestrian entry, outside areas, ramps in the setbacks, the double-height atrium, and façade material details, should be superimposed with the existing context, including road networks and surrounding structures, to provide a better understanding of the proposal.

c) The elevations and sections need to be detailed for a better understanding of the overall scheme clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc.  Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

d) The design of the main gates the boundary wall etc. have the greatest external public interface will have a bearing on the overall public perception of the aesthetics of the complex, the same needs to be detailed for gate/grill detail/material applications coordinated with plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.

e) Reference images of various types of modular toilets have been provided, but their corresponding locations in the layout and 3D views are missing, making the intent unclear. The drawings should be coordinated, and a comprehensive scheme should be submitted for better understanding.

f) The provision of utilities, services, and other facilities etc., on the terrace, is not reflected in the 3d views, thus not giving a complete picture including overhead utilities in the complex, which could have a bearing on the urban aesthetics.

g) The mechanism for air conditioning needs to be detailed i.e., location, areas of inflow/outflow in indoor areas and the appropriate treatments used to conceal/screen the air-conditioning system. Also, it shall be ensured that there is no leakage from the AC unit causing deterioration of spaces (indoor and outdoor).

h) 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, 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) 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 water tanks, rainwater pipes, plumbing pipes, service equipment, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes, 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. Overall, the revised design scheme received at the conceptual stage lacks clarity, is not self-explanatory, and requires significant revisions and modifications. The architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations. It is requested that the architect submit a detailed response, addressing each point raised by the Commission in a clear and point-by-point manner.

1. The EDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on November 13, 2020, and May 21, 2021 and did not accept the concept of layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on October 22, 2021 respectively. Subsequently, the Commission accepted the concept of the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 06, 2023, where specific observations were made.
3. The Commission did not approve the regularisation plan at its meeting held on March 07, 2024, specific observations were given. No record of approval (Formal) taken has been found in the Commission's available record.
4. The building plan proposal received (online) for the regularisation of already constructed residential flats (Tower-1 to Tower 10 only) was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-02032456004, F.no. 56(4)/2024-DUAC dated March 08, 2024. Based on the observations given, submission made, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that various types of residential building blocks, ranging from Tower-1 to Tower-10, have already been constructed on the site.

b) The Commission took note of the email from MCD dated July 31, 2024, as well as the letter from the Deputy Secretary (Admn.A), Cabinet Secretariat, CGO Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi (letter no: 44/22/2024-Admn I-5252 dated July 18, 2024), and the letter from CCE (R&D), DRDO, Delhi (letter no: CCE (R&D)/Delhi/Mayur Vihar & Ghitorni/ENQ-I/2024-25 dated July 29, 2024).

c) Considering the facts presented, including drawings, documentation, and photographs of the constructed blocks from Tower-1 to Tower-10, the Commission reviewed the proposal solely on visual and aesthetic perspective and found it to be acceptable.