Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1773rd meeting held on 08.08.2024.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1773rd meeting held on 08.08.2024 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 accept the concept of building plans proposal at its meeting held on July 25, 2024 and August 08,2024, respectively, specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC conceptually unsuitable letter no: OL-30072427052 dated 13.08.2024. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) There are inconsistencies in the submission ie. the plans, elevations and 3d views do not match. The following inconsistencies are observed:

i)  The windows shown in rear elevation and in building plans are shown as two separate windows, whereas the windows shown in the 3d views are continuous.

ii) Proposed shaft on rear balcony is also missing in elevations and 3d views. One of the plumbing shafts has not been indicated in the ground floor plan. These should be clearly marked to ensure understanding of the plumbing layout, with pipes concealed within the shafts so as not to mar the aesthetics of the facade.

iii) Termination of rainwater pipes on the ground floor is unclear in the submission and the same shall be clearly explained.

b) The Commission advises the architect to address these discrepancies, make the necessary corrections, and resubmit the proposal with corrected 3D views and accurate information.

c) 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.

d) 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. Due to the discrepancies received with the proposal at the formal stage, 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. he South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the concept of building plans proposal in respect of studio apartments and staff quarters at its meetings held on July 11, 2019, September 18, 2019, March 04, 2020, respectively and did not approve (formal) the building plans proposal at its January 08, 2021, meeting. 
3. The building plans proposal for Training Institute for National Law University 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 artwork on facade shows Statue of Justice with crown resembling Statue of Liberty which is an incorrect representation. It needs to have correct graphical representation.

b) Utilities such as DG sets, DG exhaust pipe etc. should be ensured to be suitably located along with appropriate aesthetic screening mechanisms.

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) The Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

e) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels 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 South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the concept of building plans proposal in respect of studio apartments and staff quarters at its meetings held on July 11, 2019, September 18, 2019, March 04, 2020, respectively and did not approve (formal) the building plans proposal at its January 08, 2021, meeting. 
3. The building plans proposal for Staff quarters and Studio Apartment for National Law University 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) It is suggested to keep similar façade vocabulary of the staff quarters and the studio apartments as these are part of the same complex. Moreover, some architectural elements from the Training institute to be incorporated in these façades to ensure harmony between adjacent complexes.

b) To explain the scheme better, details of materiality for the buildings to be submitted. 

c) Details including 3D views of the toilet under Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) etc. which are also part of the formal submission are missing.

It should be ensured that the detailed coordinated drawings of each component should be submitted for the consideration of the Commission.

Studio apartment

a) The submitted 3d views of Studio apartment show that all the elevations are of similar nature. The window details (detail A) show slope in brick work which does not seem to be a durable and well-designed detail. It also appears to be not as per orientation and does not adequately address construction-related concerns.

Additionally, these slopes would gather dust and leave trail marks post rainfall, and thus would affect aesthetics of building. The architect is advised to provide alternative options for detail of architectural elements for protection from harsh weather conditions. The façade shall be designed keeping in mind that it is aesthetically pleasing and low on maintenance. Materials like fins, metal, FRP etc. may be explored to add interest in the façade, instead of sloping surfaces in brick and concrete.

Staff quarters and EWS housing

b) Design scheme for appropriate screening of outdoor air conditioners to be provided.

c) The separate residential units are not clearly understood in their current form. To improve understanding of the design proposal, some typical units should be detailed on a large scale, covering aspects from the basement to the upper floors. This should include functional furniture arrangements, clothing drying areas, screening for outdoor air conditioners, structural framework, and plumbing arrangements for toilets and kitchens along with provision of rainwater pipes. Appropriate details should be provided to understand these aspects.

d) It is also observed that the plumbing shaft (kitchen and toilet) and rainwater pipe shafts are either missing or have not been continued on the ground floor in some drawings and thus their termination is unclear. Corrected drawings to be submitted showing details of their termination on the ground floor.

e) 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.

f) 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.

g) 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 proposal received at formal stage lacks clarity and is not self-explanatory, thus 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. 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 at its meetings held on May 24, 2024 and June 28, 2024 respectively, specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-21062455100 dated 03.07.2024. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) Previous observations of the Commission vide letter no. OL-21062455100 dtd. July 3^rd, 2024, remain non-compliant.

b) The Commission reiterated its observation dtd. July 3^rd, 2024, that:

“To mitigate the heat island effect and prevent issues like urban flooding the Commission strongly recommends containing the vast majority of the required parking within the footprint of the building by relocating parking to stilt levels and basements and with rare exceptions due to constraining factors, to MLCP’s.”

However, it was observed that basement has not been proposed and instead parking is proposed in MLCP. It is strongly suggested to provide basement parking to accommodate the requisite parking. It was observed that the shape of the building is regular, and it is possible to design the basement with double stack parking to accommodate the required parking.

c) A skin section to be submitted to explain the details of the façade including boxing, fixing of the glazing etc. to explain the scheme in detail.

d) 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

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 and its earlier observation, the proposal received at formal stage 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 and July 4, 2024, respectively, specific observations were given.
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-02072455103, F.no. 55(103)/2024-DUAC dated 10.07.2024. Based on the replies submitted and revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The club area forms an integral part of the housing complex as it is strategically located between the residential towers and thus requires detailed design and planning for effective functioning.

b) Since the submission is at formal stage, details of all areas of the building complex including the club area need to be provided. Also, the submitted 3d views of club area appear to be sketchy. An appropriate number of uncut 3d views illustrating the materiality of the façade, highlighting typical details like glazing, parapet, entrance to the club etc. to ensure clarity in the submission at formal stage.  

c) Toilet facilities for club are missing in the submission. Details including shower area, toilets, provision of shafts to accommodate plumbing pipes etc. need to be provided in the submission.

d) Kitchen/pantry area of the club are also missing in formal submission. Also, details including kitchen exhaust pipes and shafts, waste management system for kitchen waste disposal need to be provided.

e) Bird’s eye view of the terrace for club building is not clear, and thus cannot be appreciated by the Commission.

Since the terrace of the club building would be visible from the residential towers, it shall be ensured that the terrace is aesthetically designed by way of landscaping etc. Details of proposed utilities on terrace to be shown in respective floor plans and 3d views.

f) The design of the parapet of club building is not clear ie. the parapet height seems to be very less (from the 3d views) and thus a skin section through the same to be submitted to show its detail. Details of approach for the terrace area also to be shown in the relevant floor plans.

g) Appropriate number of skin sections showing the sun shading mechanism for club building to be provided.

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, 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.

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.

4. Overall, the submission received at the formal stage is not comprehensive and lacks clarity in explaining the complete design scheme including 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 CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the proposal (Formal) at its meeting held on November 16, 2023 and March 14, 2024, respectively, where specific observations were made.
3. The proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Letter No.: F.no 62(32)/2024-DUAC, OL-08032462032 dated March 18,2024. Based on the compliances made to its earlier observations and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) All requisite parking provisions to be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

b) 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.

c) 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.

d) 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. 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. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on July 04, 2024, where specific observations were made.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinized along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Letter No.: F.no 50(37)/2024-DUAC, OL-27062450037 dated July 10, 2024. Based on the submitted drawings/documentation/photographs etc. the proposal for NOC for Completion is found acceptable.

Building plans proposal for addition/alteration in respect of Sommerville Senior Secondary School at Vasundhara Enclave, Chilla, Dallupura. (Conceptual Stage)

1. he proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on October 28, 1997 and accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on July 19,2005.
3. The building plans for additions and alterations received (online) at the Conceptual 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) The design of the proposed classrooms shall be as per prevalent Unified building bye laws including the provision of appropriate light and ventilation, entry/exits to classroom etc.

c) The proposed shaft between the work experience room and the classroom seems to be very narrow ie. 1.83m wide. It shall be ensured that the shaft is well landscaped and it’s façade is appropriately treated so as to ensure it does not resemble a service shaft. To add interest, an artwork, visible from inside the building can be installed in the shaft to improve the aesthetics while ensuring it is serviceable and approachable from appropriate location.

d) The parking provided adjacent to the building envelope to be finished with grass pavers instead of tar to avoid urban flooding conditions and improve ground water recharge. All requisite car parking requirements shall be as per applicable rules/regulations/guidelines etc.

e) Plumbing shafts with provision of plumbing pipes along with their screening to be ensured in all toilets to ensure the exposed pipes do not mar the aesthetics of the façade.

f) Materiality of the façade to be ensured to be same as the existing building to maintain harmony and coherence.

g) Designated screened spaces for outdoor air conditioning units to be provided to ensure they do not mar the aesthetics of the façade.

h) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, shall ensure to be installed in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

i) 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.

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 incorporate all these observations in the submission at the formal stage for the review of the Commission.

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

Buildings plan proposal for additions and alterations in respect of Bal Bharti School, Sector 12 Dwarka.  (Conceptual Stage)

1. he proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 10, 2000, and the NOC for completion plan approval was given in the meeting of the Commission held on February 12, 2008. The revised layout and building plan proposal was approved in the meeting of the Commission held on May 07, 2014. The NOC for completion (third floor only) was accepted by the Commission at its June 25, 2021, meeting.
3. The Commission did not accept the concept of building plans proposal for additions and alteration at its meeting held on June 20, 2024, specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for additions and alteration (addition of classrooms from first to third floor) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Letter No.: OL-08062427035 dated 27.06.2024. Based on the compliances made in the submission, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations, it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) The design of the proposed classrooms shall be as per prevalent Unified building bye laws including the provision of appropriate light and ventilation, entry/exits to classroom etc.

c) The proposed shaft between the existing building and the proposed block shall be ensured to be treated with all internal surfaces either treated, decorated, painted upon, or landscaped appropriately to ensure it does not resemble a service shaft. An artwork, visible from inside the building can be installed in the shaft to improve the aesthetics while ensuring it is serviceable and approachable from an appropriate location.

d) Designated screened spaces for outdoor air conditioning units to be provided to ensure they do not mar the aesthetics of the façade.

e) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, shall ensure to be installed in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

f) 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.

g) 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.

5. Overall, the architect is advised to incorporate all the above points including those communicated vide DUAC Letter No.: OL-08062427035 dated 27.06.2024 in the next submission (formal stage) for the review of the Commission.

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