Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1774th meeting held on 14.08.2024.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1774th meeting held on 14.08.2024 were discussed.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the revised layout plan in respect of South Asian University at its meeting held on at its meeting held on June 18, 2014 and approved the building plans in respect of Administration (Academic) Building no. 1 for South Asian University, Maidan Garhi at August 31, 2016, meeting.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on June 05, 2024, observations were given.
4. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the documentation, drawings, photographs and the letters from South Asian University No: SAU/9A-157/2024/Vol-I/329 dated 07.06.2024, and SAU/9A-157/2024/Vol-I/335 dated 18.06.2024. Based on the above, the proposal for NOC for Completion (Administration Building (01)) is found to be accepted.

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 Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on August 01, 2024, observations were given.
4. The proposal for NOC for completion (Part-Tower 1 and 2) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the documentation, drawings, photographs etc. Based on the documentation, including drawings and photographs of the complex, the proposal for NOC for Completion (Part-Tower 1 and 2) is found to be accepted.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve (Formal) the building plan proposal in respect of residential building on plot no. 121, Block No. 171 situated at Sunder Nagar at its meeting held on March 29, 2023. The Commission did not accept the concept of building plans proposal in respect of residential building on plot no. 119 and 121, Block No. 171 situated at Sunder Nagar at its meeting held on July 18, 2024, specific observations were given.
3. The building plan 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: OL-19062427042 dated 24.07.2024, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal has been submitted at the formal stage, but the quality of the submission is not satisfactory. At this formal stage, the architect must ensure that the submission is complete and comprehensible in all aspects, including plans, elevations, sections, annotated (with material details) 3D views from all four sides, and bird's-eye views displaying utilities and services on the terrace floor for the Commission's review. Additionally, the 3D views do not clearly represent certain elements, such as the spiral staircase shown in the terrace floor plan.

b) The plan includes surface parking (hard paving) to meet the required number of spaces, and it should be ensured that the surface is finished with grass pavers to prevent urban flooding and support groundwater recharge.

c) The details of the gate and boundary wall seems to be missing in the submission. These should also be included in the submitted 3D views, with close-up visuals of elements such as the guard house and architectural details in the boundary wall and gate. Additionally, the gate/grill details and material applications should be coordinated with the plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views.

d) The plumbing shafts for waste and rainwater, as indicated in the floor plans, are not reflected in the elevations and 3D views, creating inconsistency in the submission, the same need to be should be appropriate screened.

e) The floor plans and 3D views depict large balconies on various floors, but the rainwater provisions for these areas are unclear, along with the screening mechanisms, which could affect the façade's aesthetics. It should be ensured that these details are incorporated into the respective floor plans, elevations, and 3D views.

f) The provision of overhead water tank seems to be insufficient given the large plot size. Also, appropriate screening mechanisms to conceal the tanks shall be made to ensure they are not visible from the eye level. 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.

g) 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.

4. Overall, the submission received at the formal stage lacks clarity and comprehensiveness. 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. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for additions/alterations (layout) at its meeting held on January 14, 2009. The Commission accepted the concept of building plans proposal for additions/alterations (addition of new super-speciality block and MLCP block) at its meeting held on March 23, 2023 and approved at formal stage at its meeting held on May 04, 2023, observations were given.
3. The Commission accepted the concept of building plan proposal for additions/alterations (alterations in existing nursing block, addition of one floor and new extension (B+G+3 Floors) to nursing block) at its meeting held on July 25, 2024 but did not approve (formal) the same at its meeting held on August 08, 2024, observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations (alterations in existing nursing block, addition of one floor and new extension (B+G+3 Floors) to nursing block) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized, along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: F.no. 55(108)/2024-DUAC, OL-06082455108 dated 13.08.2024. Based on the replies submitted, and 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) All requisite parking shall be as per applicable norms/regulations etc.

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.

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 additions and alterations (alterations in ground floor and proposed first to third floor) 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) 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 North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve (Formal) the building plan proposal in respect of Commercial building at its meeting held on July 31, 2020, specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (alterations of part basement, stilt and proposed first to third floor) 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 noted that only a small portion of the site is planned for excavation to create a basement integrated at the stilt level above. Given the dense development surrounding the proposed excavation area, the Commission wishes to review the proposal holistically, including the structural arrangement. To better understand the overall situation, existing site photographs of the area should be submitted.

c) The turning radius in the parking plan appears insufficient for parking cars at a 90-degree angle. Additionally, the distance between the car parking spaces and the staircase core seems inadequate for proper parking. These aspects need to be revised and resubmitted.

d) The ground floor features various shop openings, 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.

e) Discrepancy have been observed in the submission, the proposed first, second, and third 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.

f) A cross-section of the proposed areas should be submitted, clearly explaining the structural arrangement and its impact on the façade's aesthetics. The section should include the column layout and determine how the recesses on the upper floors will be structurally supported as it may impact visual aesthetices.

4. 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. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The EDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held March 27, 2019. The Commission accepted the concept of revised building plans proposal at its meeting held on August 01, 2024, observations were given.
3. The building plans 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-30072427051 dated 06.08.2024, and OL-07082427055 dated 21.08.2024 respectively. Based on the replies submitted (for letter dated 06.08.2024 only), and the submission made, 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 Commission observed that the proposal is currently at the formal stage and has been resubmitted without addressing the previous observations outlined in the DUAC observation letter no: OL-07082427055 dated 21.08.2024.

c) The overall quality of the submitted 3D views is not suitable for a formal stage submission. The views appear too sketchy, and the scale, proportions, and materials are unclear. Annotated 3D views from multiple angles, clearly indicating the façade materials, must be provided. Additionally, the ramp in one of the side setbacks is missing from the proposed 3D views. Detailed 3D views rom all sides shall be submitted for the review of the Commission.

d) The Commission reiterated the observations previously communicated in the conceptually suitable letter dated August 21, 2024, specifically noting that:

“(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.”

These observations remain unaddressed, even though the proposal has reached the formal stage. The architect should appropriately address all the Commission's observations for further review.

e) The Commission observed that the areas outside the plot boundary (municipal area beyond the pavement) have been included in the proposal, featuring landscaping, steps, and a kerb height of approximately 600mm. However, site photographs of the pavement show the kerb to be not more than 150mm, leading to a discrepancy. This should be reassessed, and a revised submission should be made for the Commission's review.

f) The full-height advertisement panels on one of the facades of the proposed structure, as shown in the submitted 3D views, start at the plinth level. The fixing details for these panels are unclear and should be elucidated with appropriate details in the revised submission.

4. Overall, the submission received at the formal stage is sketchy and not comprehensible. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

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 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 NDMC 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 (for demolition and reconstruction) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) Ensure that the overhead water tanks and other utilities on the terrace are properly screened using an appropriate screening method. 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.

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.

Layout and Building plans proposal in respect of DTC Group Housing at Shadipur. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the layout and building plans proposal (conceptual) at its meetings held on December 12, 2023, where specific observations were made.
3. The layout and 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-05122327026 dated 18.12.2023. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the proposal was received at the conceptual stage, and the architect has provided their credentials, including mobile number and email ID, under the owner’s credentials. To maintain the integrity and seriousness of the submission, it is required to provide the actual credentials of the owner, including an authorization letter appointing the architect for the project, along with the owner's mobile number, email ID, and address. This will ensure that the owner can be contacted to address any queries from the Commission.

b) In light of the above, the proposal is being returned to the architect without consideration by the Commission.

4. The Architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations above including those communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Unsuitable letter no: OL-05122327026 dated 18.12.2023.  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 plan proposal for addition of New Block-4 in respect of Gyan Bharati School, Saket, Malviya Nagar Road, New Delhi – 110017. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the NOC for completion plans proposal was accepted by the Commission at its meeting held on August 31, 2016. The Commission approved the proposal for additions and alterations (addition of two floors in Block 2 (G+1 floor) and addition of Block 5 (B+G+4 floors)) at its meeting held on September 08, 2018.  Subsequently, the Commission did not accept the plan proposal for additions and alterations (extension of Block 4- B+G+3 Floors) at its meeting held on June 20, 2024, observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal for additions and alterations (extension of Block 4 – B+G+3 Floors) received at Conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Unsuitable letter no: OL-29042427036 dated 27.06.2024. Based on the 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 noted that during its review of the proposal at the conceptual stage in the meeting held on June 20, 2024, detailed and specific observations were provided. These observations were communicated vide DUAC's Conceptually Unsuitable letter no: OL-29042427036 dated 27.06.2024, with the following advice:

“…..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….”

It is regrettable that no detailed response has been received from the architect, and most of the observations remain unaddressed in this conceptual submission.

4. The Architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations above including those communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Unsuitable letter no: OL-29042427036 dated 27.06.2024.  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.

Revised Buildings plan proposal in respect of Motel building on land bearing khasra no. 44/2,3,4 min, 7min, 44/4 min at Village Kapashera. (Conceptual Stage)

1. he proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the proposal at its meeting held on September 08, 2018. 
3. The revised building plan proposal received at Conceptual stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the proposal was received at the conceptual stage, and the architect has provided their credentials, including mobile number and email ID, under the owner’s credentials. To maintain the integrity and seriousness of the submission, it is required to provide the actual credentials of the owner, including an authorization letter appointing the architect for the project, along with the owner's mobile number, email ID, and address. This will ensure that the owner can be contacted to address any queries from the Commission.

b) In light of the above, the proposal is being returned to the architect without consideration by the Commission.

4. 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 SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved proposal at formal stage at its January 17, 2018, meeting, specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised. Based on the documentation, drawings, photographs received, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that, although the proposal is at the part-completion stage, it is unclear which part of the campus is being considered for completion. The specific area requiring part-completion should be clearly marked on the respective drawings, with the site plan highlighting the relevant section. Additionally, there is an insufficient number of uncut photographs of the built structures. Clear and uncut photographs of the areas under consideration for the NOC for completion—including the terrace, basement, internal roads, landscaping, signage, main gate, boundary wall, and other essential elements for the building's functionality—should be provided. These photographs should be properly labelled and delineated to reflect the 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. Overall, the proposal received at the completion stage lacks adequate documentation and clarity regarding which part requires NOC for Completion (part). The specific area requiring part-completion should be clearly marked on the respective drawings, with the site plan highlighting the relevant section.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.