Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1772nd meeting held on 01.08.2024.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1772nd  meeting held on 01.08.2024 were discussed.

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 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 or cover the existing construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) It was observed that certain sections, including an existing staircase on the ground floor, are planned for demolition. To provide a clearer understanding of the proposed modifications and their impact on the structure above, existing site photographs of the internal areas including the staircase, shall be submitted.

c) The ground floor features numerous doors, while the upper floors display a recessed façade. The structural configuration and its impact on façade aesthetics is unclear; therefore, a structural arrangement should be provided to clearly illustrate the design scheme after the proposed modifications.

d) Discrepancy have been observed in the submission, the proposed first and second floor plans depict plumbing shafts that end abruptly and do not extend to the ground floor. Revised drawings for the ground floor that include the complete plumbing mechanism, showing the location of the shafts, plumbing, and rainwater pipes shall be submitted for the judicious review of the Commission.

e) A cross-section of the proposed areas, including the staircase, that clearly explains the structural arrangement and its impact on façade aesthetics shall be submitted. The section should illustrate the column layout and demonstrate how the recesses on the upper floors will be supported structurally.

f) The side elevation facing the side lane is missing in the submission and the same needs to be submitted to understand the aesthetics of the respective façade.

g) Overall, the submitted drawings have lot of errors i.e. they are not architecturally correct. The drawings need to be drawn correctly with annotations to explain the scheme in detail.

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 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 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 did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on June 13, 2024 and August 1, 2024, respectively, 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: F.No.55(106)/2024-DUAC, OL-26072455106 dated 06.08.2024. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations, it did not consider or 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 has been reviewed twice before as well and have been resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing the previous observations outlined in the DUAC Observation Letter no: F.No. 55(96)/2024-DUAC, OL-05062455096 dated 18.06.2024, and 55(106)/2024-DUAC, OL-26072455106 dated 06.08.2024 respectively.

c) The existing and proposed drawings should be overlaid to provide a detailed understanding of the scheme. Additionally, both the existing and proposed plans should be displayed side by side to clearly illustrate the suggested modifications, such as changes in the location of doors and windows, which affect the building's façade aesthetics.

d) A discrepancy has been noted in the submission received at the formal stage. While the architect's response suggests that only the existing façade (parapet) will be modified, the 3D views submitted show changes in the façade as well as the size and design of the window openings. This needs to be reviewed and reconciled with the plans, elevations, sections, 3D views, and project reports.

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, the submission received at the formal stage has been reviewed twice before regarding the same issues, yet these issues remain unresolved, and the submission still have discrepancies.
5. 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 November 26, 2018, but did not approve the revised building plans proposal at its meeting held on May 24, 2024, observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal 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: F.No.55(94)/2024-DUAC, OL-22052455094 dated 29.05.2024. Based on the compliances made to its previous observations, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, 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) 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.

c) 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.

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 Commission did not accept the Completion plan proposal (for Block B-1) at its meeting held on July 11, 2024, observations were given.
5. The building plans proposal for NOC for the Completion (Part for Hospital Building Block B-1), 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: F.No.49(21)/2024-DUAC, OL-04072449021 dated 16.07.2024 including photographs, drawing/documentation etc. Based on the submission made, the proposal for NOC for Completion (Block B-1) is found to be accepted.

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 received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) It was observed that the project brief lists the property number as 4406 at 5A/21, but the submission pertains to 4406 at 5A/20. This appears to be a printing error, and the approval is therefore granted for property number 4406 at 5A/20.

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 CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the proposal for Redevelopment of General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA), Kasturba Nagar at its meeting held on January 28, 2020, observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for NOC for the Completion (Part for Commercial & Dispensary Block), received online at the completion stage, was scrutinized, based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The Commission took note of the undertaking from the Executive Engineer, Redevelopment Division-II, Vidyut Bhawan, CPWD, concerning the execution of artwork in the project, stating:

“……artwork will be installed once the site is completed for overall context….”

The Commission opines that, given the extensive nature of the complex, completion may take a significant amount of time, and the two aspects should not be interlinked. As a public building (Commercial & Dispensary block), completed artwork is required at the completion stage for the Commission's consideration.

b) Cropped photographs of the completion plan proposal have been submitted, which do not clearly show the necessary details. As the proposal is at the completion stage, uncut and clear photographs of the built structure for which completion is being sought should be provided. These should include the terrace (showing utilities with appropriate screening mechanisms, solar panels, etc.) and basement parking (clearly showing parking provisions) to accurately reflect the work executed on-site for the Commission's consideration.

c) 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.

d) 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.

e) The completed public art work at the site are missing. According to point no. 14 of the CPAA (Criteria for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website (www.duac.org.in), public art of suitable scale, size, and material, which imparts character and identity to the complex and is visible from outside, must be installed.

4. The proposal submitted at the completion stage lacks clarity, cropped photographs have been used, and is not comprehensive. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

Revised Building plans 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. The Commission did not accept the concept of building plans proposal at its meeting held on August 1, 2024, observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal 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-30072427051 dated 06.08.2024. Based on the compliances to its previous observations, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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.

b) Detailed information about the retractable roof must be provided, including the materials, fabric used for covering, structural mechanism, its detailed plan/elevations, and skin sections for better understanding of the Commission.

c) Several exterior toilets have been shown without making provisions for the plumbing mechanism. These need to be detailed with the necessary plumbing provisions, including their screening mechanisms. It should be ensured that they are not left exposed and do not detract from the aesthetics of the façade.

d) The details of solar panels, DG sets, HVAC systems, etc., shown in the floor plans need to be accurately represented in the corresponding 3D views to ensure consistency. Currently, the 3D views seem to show them merely for illustration purposes.

e) The ramp in the side setbacks is not shown in the proposed 3D views. It is required to include representations of all four sides in the submitted 3D views for review. Additionally, the road drop-off outside is not accurately depicted in the 3D views of that side. This should be reflected in the layout plans to ensure coherence and consistency.

f) Furthermore, the proposed 3D views should be submitted both with and without the main gate and boundary wall to enable a comprehensive review of the façade by the Commission.

g) The design of main gate, appears to be missing in the submission. It is reiterated that 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.

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) 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, 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 architect is advised to address all the above observations, as well as those communicated in the conceptually unsuitable observation letter no: OL-30072427051 dated 06.08.2024 issued by the Commission, and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

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 for addition/alteration in respect of Sommerville Senior Secondary School at Vasundhara Enclave, Chilla, Dallupura.

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