Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1779th meeting held on 19.09.2024.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1779th meeting held on 19.09.2024 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 approve the building plans proposal (formal) at its meetings held on March 14, 2024, April 18, 2024 and July 04, 2024, respectively. The Commission did not accept the concept of the building plans proposal at its meeting held on May 16, 2024 and July 25, 2024, respectively, where specific observations were made. 
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized, along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Unsuitable letter no: OL-22072427049 dated 30.07.2024. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the owner online but found the incorrect credentials of the owner due to which contact could not be established.  Based on the submission made, incorrect credentials of owner, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed with regret that the proposal has already been reviewed three times at the formal stage and twice at the conceptual stage, yet the architect continues to submit inconsistent and incorrect submission at the formal stage. This raises concerns about the architect's capability, understanding, and competence in handling a proposal of this scope. Consequently, the Commission wished to discuss the issues to be resolved directly with the owner but discovered that the architect had incorrectly provided the owner's contact information (mobile number) in the submitted proforma.

b) In view of the above, it is returned to the SDMC without complete/full consideration of the Commission. 

1. he SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on June 18, 2002. The Commission accepted the concept of the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on January 22, 2020 and approved the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at formal stage at its meeting held on February 26, 2020.
3. No record of NOC for completion, if any, has been found in the available record of the Commission.   
4. The proposal for NOC for completion (for the additions/alterations approved in the meeting held on February 26, 2020) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised 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), the documentation, including drawings and photographs, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that no prior record of the NOC has been found in its available records. The submission does not clearly specify which part of the built structure requires the NOC for completion. This should be clearly indicated on the relevant drawings, documentation, and photographs for the Commission's review. Additionally, any previous completion certificates issued by the local authority should be provided for the Commission's reference, information, and records.

b) In its report the architect has indicated that:

“……artwork not required in addition/alteration case….”

The same is not appreciated, the proposal being at the NOC for Completion shall have completed 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.

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.

5. Overall, due to lack of clarity, appropriate documentation for a proposal received at the NOC for Completion stage, it could not be reviewed judiciously. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1.  The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved Layout plan in respect of Central Armed Forces Institute of Medical Science at Maidan Garhi at its meeting held on July 13, 2016, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on February 22, 2024, specific observations were given.
4. 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 letter no: OL-16022464003 dated 27.02.2024, and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held online and the submission made including drawings, documentations, undertaking from the proponent, and the photographs, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The Commission has observed that the Campus comprises over 15 individual building blocks serving various purposes; however, no formal approval for theses building has been taken from the Commission. Based on the drawings, documentations, undertaking from the proponent, and the photographs submitted, the proposal for NOC for Completion is found to be accepted.

1. The DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2.  The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on October 24, 1985. The Commission accepted the NOC for completion at its meeting held on September 04, 1998.
3. The Commission did not approved the building for addition/alterations at its meeting held on June 28, 2024, specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (addition/extension in the balcony area, extension of toilet/WC) 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-24062422097, F.no. 22(97)/2024-DUAC dated 03.07.2024, 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 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 photographs of the existing building reveal that no initial provisions were made to screen the plumbing arrangements, leaving all pipes exposed. In the current design for the WC extension, no plumbing shaft has been included, which will result in continued issues with exposed pipes and negatively impact the visuals and aesthetics of the complex. A revised design should be developed to systematically screen most exposed pipes for the review of the Commission.

c) Balconies should have provisions for rain water pipes and their screening so as not to be highly visible on the façade and spoil the overall aesthetics.

d) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

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.

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

Building plans proposal in respect of Residential building on plot no. 119 and 121, Block No. 171 situated at Sunder Nagar. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve 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, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the concept of the 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. The Commission did not approve the same at formal stage at its meeting held on August 29, 2024, specific observations were given.
4. The building plan proposal (Residential building on plot no. 119 and 121) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized, along with previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC OL-24082455013 dated 04.09.2024, and the replies submitted by the architect. Based on the previous observations, replies submitted, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the proposal is at the conceptual stage and has been resubmitted without adequately addressing the previous observations outlined in DUAC letter no. OL-24082455013 dated 04.09.2024. These observations specifically pertain to the façade’s materiality, the creation of plumbing shafts for waste, rainwater, and balcony water discharge, as well as the inclusion of screening mechanisms, all of which may impact the aesthetics of the façade.

b) The details provided for the gate and boundary wall are unsatisfactory, and the specifics of the railing and gate are unclear. These elements should be clearly elucidated with appropriate information, including the materials used, level of DPC, treatment of area where paint and paster will be shed, etc all reflected in enlarged detailed drawings.

5. Due to the previous observations remaining non-compliant, the Commission could not appreciate the proposal. It is requested that the Architect submit a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission above including communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-24082455013 dated 04.09.2024 in a clear and point-by-point manner.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plans received (online) formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Proposed set back between servant quarter and the rear boundary shall be as per applicable norms.

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, 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.

The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting the confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.