Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1778th meeting held on 12.09.2024.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1778th meeting held on 12.09.2024 were discussed.

1. The EDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 11, 1991 but approved the proposal for the addition of the fourth floor at its meeting held on October 07, 2015, specific observations were given. No record of NOC for Completion taken was found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The Commission accepted the concept of building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on November 23, 2023, observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a new building block comprising of 2B + stilts + upper ground + three floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Suitable letter no: OL-09112327020 dated 29.11.2023, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission.  Based on the replies submitted, discussion online and the revised 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 and cover the existing construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) The Commission observed that the existing building block does not include provisions for a basement; however, the new block proposes two basements and a stilt area to accommodate the required car parking. While the submission is at the formal stage, it lacks clarity regarding the structural design of key functional areas, particularly the stilt parking, where the structure could impact the parking layout. The submission should provide detailed structural designs, including the spacing between parking bays, turning radius, and other relevant aspects, to ensure the functionality of the parking system.

c) Upon detailed scrutiny, the Commission noted that parking bays numbered 18-25 interfere with sense of entry for pedestrian movement, particularly for students. The spaces should be renumbered to higher numbers that reflect their label as spillover parking only when basement and other slots are all filled.  

d) While two ramps have been provided for access to the proposed basements, they do not appear to be reflected in the submitted 3D views. Similarly, 3D views from various angles of the stilt area should be included to better understand its functionality. The views should also encompass the common courtyard area between the proposed and existing building blocks.

e) It was noted that certain areas of the internal layout in the proposed building block are non-functional and could be of use from design improvements. Key observations regarding the internal layout include:

i. The positioning of the toilets and lift lobby (between the existing and proposed blocks) appears to create a bottleneck, hindering the smooth flow of student movement. It is important to ensure that the corridor width complies with current building bye-laws. Furthermore, the locations of the toilets and lift lobby should be re-evaluated or redesigned to avoid obstructing student traffic, as this area functions as a connection point between the existing and proposed blocks on all floors.

ii. The intersection of the corridor railing with the classrooms/labs on the floors creates a sharp angle, which is not an ideal design feature and poses a potential risk to users. This detail should be modified to ensure the safety of student.

iii. Each classroom must include two doors in accordance with the prevailing building bye-laws. Adequate light and ventilation should also be provided in all classrooms, as required by the applicable regulations.

f) The layout lacks clarity due to the absence of dimensions in several areas to fully assess these sections. The submission should be properly dimensioned, clear, and complete in all aspects to facilitate a judicious review.

g) 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.

h) 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.

i) All water tanks, plumbing pipes, rainwater 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.

5. 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 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 Commission's available record.
3. The building plan proposal received online at the formal stage was scrutinized, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while the proposal has been submitted at the formal stage, the quality of the 3D views is inappropriate. The scale, proportions, and materials are not comprehensible. The building’s façade appears highly contemporary and is not in harmony with its surroundings, particularly as it does not reflect the heritage character of Old Delhi.

b) Additionally, the Commission intend to review the proposal in a holistic manner rather than in isolation. Therefore, the 3D views should be superimposed onto the existing site and surrounding context, including road networks and nearby buildings, with a clearer understanding of the proposal within its actual environment.

c) The existing site photographs do not adequately capture the surrounding context and character of the neighbourhood. A sufficient number of uncropped photographs should be submitted to showcase site details, including existing structures, surrounding areas, access roads, and more, to provide a clearer understanding of the site’s setting and context.

d) The parking layout presented in the 3D views seems impractical, as the back-to-back parking arrangement is not feasible. Moreover, the submission does not provide details about the access road to the parking area or the entry and exit gates. Additionally, the orientation of the parking in the 3D view does not correspond with what is shown in the parking plan, revealing inconsistencies in the submission.

e) The plumbing shafts in the toilets facing the open area are not included in the proposal. These should be detailed with the necessary plumbing provisions, including screening mechanisms. It must be ensured that they are not left exposed, as this could detract from the aesthetics of the façade.

f) Structural arrangement is missing in the proposal thus making it an incomplete submission at the formal stage.

g) Suitable measures should be implemented to ensure the screening of clothes on the balcony, outdoor air-conditioning units, rainwater pipes, and other utilities that could detract from the aesthetics of the façade. Additionally, plumbing arrangements in the kitchen area appears to be missing, which could negatively affect the visual and urban aesthetics of the complex. These details should be addressed appropriately, including the incorporation of screening mechanisms and material applications.

h) 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 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 submission received at the formal stage have discrepancies, 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 at its meeting held on January 13, 2016 and approved the revised building plans at its meeting held on September 19, 2018.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinized. Based on the documentation, drawings, photographs, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the revised building plans were approved during its meeting on September 19, 2018, as communicated in DUAC letter no. OL-08091855012 dated September 20, 2018, subject to its fulfilment at completion stage that:

“…(i)Provisions of work of art and public toilets to be made as per provisions of Unified building byelaws for Delhi – 2016

(iv) Western side to be provided with proper sun protection…..”

It was noted that the observations made during the approval of the case at the formal stage appear to remain unaddressed. These issues must be compliant in the Completion stage submission for review.  

b) The quality of the submission appears to be unsatisfactory, as the submitted drawings are blurred and unreadable, making it difficult for the Commission to comprehend.  Clear, coordinated drawings in high resolution should be provided to ensure clarity and understanding.

c) Photographs of basement area showing the parking provisions along with the services are missing in the submission, an appropriate number of uncut photographs from all side shall be provided for the review of the Commission.​​​​​​​

d) The submitted work of art cannot be accepted as public artwork. 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 at the site (outdoors or indoors) 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.​​​​​​​

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.

4. Overall, the proposal submitted at the Completion stage lacks sufficient documentation. 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 accepted the concept of the building plans proposal at its meeting held on September 19, 2024, observations were given.
3. The building plans received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) 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.

b) 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.

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 Commission's available record.
3. The building plan 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, but only one 3D view has been submitted, which is insufficient for review at this stage. An appropriate number of annotated 3D views from all sides, including a bird's eye view with improved angles and material specifications, should be provided for better understanding. The 3D views currently lack details regarding materiality,  to understand the materials being used on the façade. These details need to be incorporated into the annotated 3D views.

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 of the site shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings including road networks, and structures around the site, for a better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.

c) Discrepancies have been noted in the submission received at the formal stage. The layout indicates provisions for mechanical parking along the front boundary wall, but this is not reflected in the proposed 3D views. Additionally, the location of the guard room does not match between the layout and the submitted 3D views. The submission at the formal stage must include coordinated and correlated materials, such as plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views.

d) It is crucial to submit comprehensive skin sections that provide a detailed understanding of the facade's elevation, including the materials employed. By providing these detailed elements, a comprehensive overview of the architectural design and facade can be obtained

e) The provision of mechanical parking in the front setback is not appreciated.  Given that the proposal includes a basement, it is recommended to relocate the double-stack parking to the basement or another area within the site to preserve the aesthetics of the building complex.

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) 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 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, due to inconsistencies and incompleteness of the proposal received at the formal stage, it 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. 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 Commission's available record.
3. The building plan proposal for additions and alterations received online at the formal stage was scrutinized, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It is suggested by the Commission, to have the pergola covered in natural green by growing climbers/creepers to make it look aesthetically pleasing.

b) 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 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.

Buildings 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 concept of the proposal for additions and alterations (extension of Block-4 -B+G+3 floors) at its meeting held on June 20, 2024, and August 29, 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 replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Unsuitable letter no: OL-24082427057 dated 04.09.2024. Based on the replies submitted, and 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) An inconsistency was noted in the architect’s reply. Citing the gazette notification dated September 21, 2021, the architect has claimed a 30% reduction in the required parking (existing and proposed) due to the site's proximity to a metro station within 500 meters. However, no location plan has been provided to verify this proximity. Additionally, the Commission observed that the dynamic parking norms do not include such provisions for school buildings.

c) Additionally, it was observed that the architect has removed all required parking provisions from the basement and relocated them to the surface, which is not acceptable to the Commission. The Commission advised that parking should be provided in the basement, as excessive surface parking is discouraged to prevent urban flooding and promote groundwater recharge.

d) The Commission reiterated its earlier observation that:

“……. A revised parking plan should be submitted with two or three alternative options, including the structural layout and well-defined vehicular movement paths….”

e) The campus is already functional, and the pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the site be elucidated appropriately with linkages from the main entrance. A combined mobility circulation plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plans from outside 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.

f) The proposed bridge connecting the existing and new building blocks at the second and third floors should be accurately depicted in the 3D views and accompanied by detailed information, including materials, specifications, and construction details, to assess its overall impact on the visual and aesthetic character of the area.

g) 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.

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, 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, due to the non-compliances to its previous observations, inconsistencies involved, and incomprehensiveness of the submission reviewed thrice at the conceptual stage, the proposal could not be reviewed judiciously. The architect is advised to address all the above Commission's observations including communicated vide 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.

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 Commission's available record.
3. The building plan proposal received online at the formal stage was scrutinized, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The architect is advised to explore the option of using jaali work railings for the proposed balconies instead of GRC balusters.

b) 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 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.