Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1780th meeting held on 26.09.2024.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1780th meeting held on 26.09.2024 were discussed.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal (formal) at its meetings held on September 20, 2017. The Commission approved the revised building plans proposal (formal) at its meetings held on July 23, 2018, where specific observations were made.
3. The revised layout and building plan proposal (for Hospital Block 1 (B1), Hospital Block 6 (B7), Residential Block 1 (B8), Hospital Block 5 (B5), Hospital Block 4 (B4), MLCP Block (B6), and Hospital Block 7 (B9)) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized, along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Approval letter no: OL-19071855002 dated 26.07.2018 and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on CISCO Webex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held online, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the proposal was previously approved during its meeting on 26.10.2017, with a revised proposal approved on 26.07.2018. The current submission is now under consideration for the demolition of several existing buildings and the construction of new building blocks, including Hospital Block 1 (B1), Hospital Block 6 (B7), Residential Block 1 (B8), Hospital Block 5 (B5), Hospital Block 4 (B4), MLCP Block (B6), and Hospital Block 7 (B9).

b) It was observed that the architect submitted a sheet showing a blue boundary labelled 'plot in possession' and a black boundary labelled 'plot line.' Additionally, some existing buildings beyond the 'plot in possession' are shown for demolition, and part of the proposed design scheme also extends beyond this boundary. The Commission is of the opinion that the ownership and boundaries of the plot must first be clearly established, and the design scheme should be adjusted accordingly before being resubmitted for the Commission's review.

c) Since the proposal includes the demolition of certain existing buildings, detailed information such as demolition plans, photographs, and labelled annotations should be submitted to provide a clear understanding of the current site conditions.

d) The proposal includes the construction of seven new buildings within the same campus and vicinity. However, the submitted 3D views reveal that the architectural styles of the proposed blocks, including the hospital, MLCP, and residential blocks, are inconsistent. It is recommended to adopt a coordinated architectural and urban design language to ensure visual coherence throughout the complex.

e) The Commission noted that the proposal has been submitted at the formal stage, but the quality of the 3D views is inadequate. The scale, proportion, and materials are unclear. The views should be revised and resubmitted with improved clarity, better visuals, and enhanced viewing angles from all sides to clearly display the materials used on the façade and to illustrate the design scheme in detail. Additionally, the 3D views should be superimposed on the existing site and surrounding context, including road networks and nearby structures, to provide a clearer understanding of the proposal within its actual environment and to highlight any existing or retained features.

f) The submission, being at the formal stage, lacks sufficient material details. Material specifications for the façade should be clearly illustrated in the 3D views and corresponding elevations to fully explain the design scheme. Elevations and sections must be meticulously detailed, showcasing architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, and other relevant features. Additionally, detailed drawings of sections (both longitudinal and cross-sections across the site) should be submitted, along with comprehensive skin sections, to provide a thorough understanding of the façade's elevation and materials. This will help present a complete overview of the architectural design and façade.

g) As the proposal is at the formal stage and involves the construction of seven new buildings, the architect must provide 3D views from all four sides of each block, including bird's eye views. Additionally, all side elevations should be clearly labelled with material specifications to facilitate the Commission's understanding.

h) The proposed parking arrangements are unclear, as each new building has varying uses, including vehicle drop-off points, long-term/short-term parking for visitors, staff parking, taxi drop-off points, and holding areas. These details need to be clearly indicated in the relevant plans, along with specifics such as the number of parking spaces and car movement patterns. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

i) Apart from private vehicles, the complex will attract users from IPT (intermediate para transit). Also, Pick-up/ drop-off for IPT is to be planned at this stage to avoid discrepancies at later stages. Movement of various users via modes including auto/taxi/e-rickshaw etc. shall also be looked into.

j) Considering each new building has varying uses, the pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the site be elucidated appropriately.  A combined mobility circulation plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plans from outside to the various buildings 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.

k) The design of the gate and the boundary wall could have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex, the same needs to be detailed for gate/grill detail/material applications coordinated with plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.

l) 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, 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.

m) 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.

n) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, 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 lack of clarity & completeness for a submission received at the formal stage, the Commission could not appreciate it judiciously. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. he 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 (for proposed extension/addition comprised of G+3 floors (having proposed double height front hall, guest rooms on second and third floor) and addition of pre-functions areas and lifts to existing recreational halls, addition of car-lift and proposed double height hall over the existing) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect online, but he was not available.  Based on the submission made, nonavailability of the architect for online discussion, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The Commission noted that no previous records of approvals (Formal/Completion) are available in its records, nor has the architect provided any such information. It has been requested to submit any prior approvals (Formal/Completion) for the Commission’s information and records.

b) 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.

c) The Commission noted that, despite the submission being at the formal stage, none of the drawings bear the architect’s seal, name, or address. All drawings, documentation, and project reports must include the architect’s credentials.

d) It was observed that the proposal is at the formal stage but key plan indicating the location of the site is missing in the submission thus not making understand it’s location and surrounding site context.

e) The quality of the 3D views is inadequate, appearing too sketchy, and the scale, proportions, and materials are not clearly understood. Annotated 3D views specifying the materials to be used on the façade should be provided. The current submission lacks annotations, making it difficult to comprehend the materials and their impact on the visual and urban aesthetics of the complex. A sufficient number of clearly marked, self-explanatory, annotated 3D views including birds eye view, drop off areas, showing the proposed design scheme and corresponding to the proposal drawings, should be submitted for better clarity and understanding.

f) The Commission recognizes that the proposal cannot be evaluated without considering the existing development on the site and the surrounding facilities. To get a complete picture of the proposal, the Commission advises that 3D views of the site be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings. This would include road networks and nearby structures.

g) It was observed that the existing basement beneath the recreational hall has been converted into parking space, yet site photographs of the basement are missing. Current photographs are required to understand its usage. Additionally, there is no information on the parking matrix, including the number of cars, their locations, and movement within the basement. These details must be elucidated and indicated in the relevant plans, along with specifics such as the number of parking spaces and patterns of car movement.

h) Additionally, a large surface parking area has been created within the 2500mm green belt, along the plot boundary, and in other surface areas, which is not acceptable. It was noted that a large hall and its associated services—such as lifts, staircases, and toilets—spanning over 70.00 meters in length and 31.50 meters in width, have been proposed without a basement. It was suggested to incorporate a basement beneath this proposed development and relocate all surface parking (both existing and proposed) underground to reduce flooding and enhance groundwater recharge. All parking provisions must comply with applicable norms, guidelines, and regulations.

i) 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.

j) Guest rooms have been provided on the second and third floors, each with individual toilets and plumbing shafts; however, these shafts do not extend to the ground floor, which seems impractical. The termination of these shafts at the ground floor, along with appropriate screening mechanisms, should be clearly detailed and modifications included in the submission for the Commission's review.

k) Large halls have been created on the first and second floors, along with landscaped terraces, swimming pool areas, and individual green terraces for guest rooms from the first to third floors. However, these areas have not been adequately detailed, including large-scale drawings, sections, material specifications, and 3D views. These details should be provided to facilitate the Commission's understanding and review of the proposed areas.

l) While the respective plans indicate the intended locations for these additions, it has been observed that the submission lacks an appropriate number of uncut photographs depicting the areas where these additions are proposed. Additionally, information such as detailed plans, material specifications, architectural elements/forms, elevations, 3D views, etc., necessary for a comprehensive evaluation, is also missing.

m) The provided elevations and sections are very basic and sketchy, lacking necessary details such as architectural elements and façade materials. The elevations and sections must be thoroughly detailed, clearly highlighting architectural features, sun shading mechanisms, and other relevant components. Additionally, comprehensive skin sections should be submitted to offer a detailed understanding of the façade's design, including the materials used.

n) A lot of live/dead load is being added to the existing building. Considering structural changes in the existing building structure shall be such designed that it can withstand weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquake etc.

o) It was observed that the location of the public toilet and the guard room etc. are also part of the formal submission but their detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have not been submitted. The Commission observed that these components have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex. The same is to be revised appropriately and incorporated for review by the Commission.

p) Large terraces should be effectively utilized to accommodate utilities, services, solar panels, and other facilities, and this should be clearly reflected in the drawings and 3D views. The terrace on the second floor should be appropriately designed to offer a visually pleasing appearance when viewed from the third floor, as this could impact the urban aesthetics, especially from aerial perspectives and neighbouring tall buildings.

q) Landscape details are missing/ incomplete for the proposal. They shall be submitted in the respective drawings and shall indicate the details of the trees planted, existing trees, levels, and types of species on an appropriate scale, in terms of the point nos. Six of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

r) 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, 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.

s) 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.

t) 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 is very sketchy, lacks clarity & incomprehensible, the Commission could not appreciate it judiciously. 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 building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect online, but he was not available. Based on the submission made, unavailability of the architect online, the following observations are to be complied with: 

1. The quality of the 3D views to be made such that the scale, proportions, and materials are clearly understood. Annotated 3D views specifying the materials to be used on the façade should be provided. The current submission lacks annotations, making it difficult to comprehend the materials and their impact on the visual and urban aesthetics of the complex. A sufficient number of clearly marked, self-explanatory, annotated 3D views including birds eye views showing the proposed design scheme and corresponding to the proposal drawings, should be submitted for better clarity and understanding.
2. The submitted plans and elevations feature large, continuous spans of glass on the west-facing façade. Given the intense and prolonged summer conditions in Delhi, it is not advisable to use extensive glazing on the western façade. Instead, recessed windows or other appropriate shading mechanisms should be incorporated to minimize heat gain and enhance sustainability.
3. The provided elevations and sections are very basic and sketchy, lacking necessary details such as architectural elements and façade materials. The elevations and sections must be thoroughly detailed, clearly highlighting architectural features, sun shading mechanisms, and other relevant components. Additionally, comprehensive skin sections should be submitted to offer a detailed understanding of the façade's design, including the materials used. These detailed elements will provide a clearer and more complete overview of the architectural design and façade.
4. It was observed that the location of the public toilet and the guard room etc. are also part of the formal submission but their detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have not been submitted. The Commission observed that these components have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex. The same is to be revised appropriately and incorporated for review by the Commission.
5. 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.
6. Large landscaped terraces are included in the design, but their details have not been fully explained. These terraces need to be appropriately detailed, including the types of plant species being used and other landscape features, in accordance with point no. six of the CPAA (Criteria for Project Assessment and Approval) as outlined on the DUAC website (www.duac.org.in), for the Commission's review.
7. 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, 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.
8. 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.
9. All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, Dg Set, DG exhaust pipes, 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.

3. 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 (formal) at its meetings held on September 08, 2018. The Commission did not accept the concept of revised building plans proposal at its meetings held on August 29, 2024, 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-27082427059 dated 04.09.2024. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect online but he was not available. Based on the submission made, unavailability of the architect online, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The quality of the 3D views to be made such that the scale, proportions, and materials are clearly understood. Annotated 3D views specifying the materials to be used on the façade should be provided. The current submission lacks annotations, making it difficult to comprehend the materials and their impact on the visual and urban aesthetics of the complex. A sufficient number of clearly marked, self-explanatory, annotated 3D views including birds eye views showing the proposed design scheme and corresponding to the proposal drawings, should be submitted for better clarity and understanding.

b) Large commercial halls have been proposed without consideration for structural arrangements. Since the proposal is at the formal stage, it needs to be comprehensively developed, including the necessary structural details to ensure feasibility. Additionally, the doors in the pre-function lobby open directly into the landscaped area, with a level difference of +0.500m, which is impractical. It is recommended to provide a platform with steps to prevent the doors from opening directly into the open space. The same shall be elucidated with appropriate details including detailed sections as appropriate.

c) The provided elevations and sections are very basic and sketchy, lacking necessary details such as architectural elements and façade materials. The elevations and sections must be thoroughly detailed, clearly highlighting architectural features, sun shading mechanisms, and other relevant components. Additionally, comprehensive skin sections should be submitted to offer a detailed understanding of the façade's design, including the materials used. These detailed elements will provide a clearer and more complete overview of the architectural design and façade.

d) The toilets have been designed without plumbing shafts, resulting in exposed plumbing pipes on the façade that could detract from its aesthetics. A suitable design mechanism should be implemented to create plumbing shafts within the toilets to conceal all plumbing pipes, along with appropriate screening solutions. These details should be clearly explained and resubmitted for review.

e) Guest rooms have been provided from first floor to fifth, each with individual toilets and plumbing shafts; however, these shafts do not extend to the ground floor, which seems impractical. The termination of these shafts at the ground floor, along with appropriate screening mechanisms, should be clearly detailed and modifications included in the submission for the Commission's review.

f) The swimming pool located at the terrace level should be elucidated with enlarged details, including material specifications, 3D views, and other relevant information to enhance the understanding of the design scheme.

g) The orientation of the solar panels appears to be facing the wrong direction relative to the sun; this should be verified and corrected.

h) Landscape shall be detailed in accordance with point no. six of the CPAA (Criteria for Project Assessment and Approval) as outlined on the DUAC website (www.duac.org.in), for the Commission's review.

i) 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, 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.

j) 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.

k) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, 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 lacks clarity & incomprehensible, the Commission could not appreciate it judiciously. 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 that building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 17, 2018, and the revised building plan proposal was approved in the meeting held on April 05, 2018, and January 06, 2022, respectively, and specific observations were given. The Commission accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on February 02, 2023.
3. The building plan proposal for additions and alterations (addition of fourth & fifth floor above) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized, 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.

b) Only one side 3D view (the front façade) has been provided. Since the submission is at the formal stage, it is required to include annotated 3D views of all sides from multiple angles, clearly highlighting the façade materials, including those of the terrace. A bird's-eye view should also be included in the submission for the Commission's review.

c) The 3D views illustrate a large continuous shading device at the terrace level of the structure. This should be elucidated with detailed information, including its design, structural specifications, materials, and sections, along with any other specific design features to explain its installation, functionality, and maintenance within the building.

d) These elements have not been appropriately depicted in the elevations/sections provided. The elevations and sections must be thoroughly detailed, clearly highlighting architectural features, sun shading mechanisms, and other relevant components. Additionally, comprehensive skin sections should be submitted to offer a detailed understanding of the façade's design, including the materials used. These detailed elements will provide a clearer and more complete overview of the architectural design and façade.

e) The proposed parking arrangements, along with the addition of two more floors above, are not clearly understood. The submission lacks details regarding the existing number of car parks and the additional parking being provided, resulting in insufficient information on how both current and additional parking will be accommodated on-site. The existing parking and the additional parking from the proposed FAR should be clearly depicted on the layout plan, with a clear distinction between the two.

f) The architect has submitted the drawings (approved at the formal stage) for basement level 1 and level 3, with provisions for mechanical car parking to meet the necessary parking requirements on-site. However, these submissions have not been supported by actual photographs of the basements. Uncut photographs of the both these basements from various angles should be provided to substantiate its actual construction at site. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

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, 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.

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. Overall, due to lack of clarity & completeness for a submission received at the formal stage, the Commission could not appreciate it judiciously. 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 ‘Haveli at 299 Kuch Ghasi Ram, Katra Neel' is a listed Grade-III heritage building at Serial No. 353 in the Gazette notification no. F. No. 13(43)/MB/UD/2014/1602 dated 29.07.2016 issued by the Department of Urban Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
4. The building plans proposal for demolition & reconstruction received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) Based on the photographs submitted by the architect and in accordance with Gazette notification no. F. No. 13(43)/MB/UD/2014/1602 dated 29.07.2016 issued by the Department of Urban Development, Government of NCT of Delhi, it is clear that the proposal under consideration is a listed Grade-III heritage building, identified as Serial No. 353. Therefore, it must adhere to the relevant provisions outlined in Annexure-II of the UBBL 2016 for Delhi.

b) Additionally, since the proposal also involves the demolition and reconstruction of the heritage property, no demolition plans and no building plans for the existing structure have been submitted. Uncut photographs of the existing building from various angles should be provided for the Commission's review.

c) Given that the Commission's mandate is to preserve the aesthetic and urban environment, it is required to understand the built façade and the surrounding context of the project. While the submitted site photographs show the surrounding context, they do not provide details about the existing building façade. Since this project involves a heritage building, the existing façade is of great significance (as its character must be preserved). Therefore, photographs of the existing façade need to be submitted to allow the Commission to evaluate the proposal judiciously.

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. Overall, due to lack of clarity & completeness for a submission received at the formal stage, the Commission could not appreciate it judiciously. 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 that building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 08, 2021, and specific observations were given.
3. The building plan proposal for additions and alterations (addition of first floor above an existing office) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized, 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.

b) It has been noted that the submission received at the formal stage is incomplete, as the proposed 3D views are missing. Annotated 3D views from all sides, clearly showcasing the façade materials, must be included in the next submission at the formal stage for the Commission's review.

c) The proposed layout of the first-floor plan lacks windows for ventilation, windows appear to be missing in the submission. A revised drawing that includes an appropriate number of windows for ventilation should be submitted.

d) The submission is missing access details for the first floor, specifically the landing detail in the plan and section, which is unclear. This needs to be updated with the correct details.

e) Work of art is missing in the submission. 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, 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.

4. Overall, due to lack of clarity & completeness for a submission received at the formal stage, the Commission could not appreciate it judiciously. 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 that building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 27, 2019. The Commission accepted the concept of the revised building plans proposal at its meeting held on August 14, 2018, and specific observations were given. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal (formal) at its meeting held on August 29, 2024.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized, along with replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-27082456008, F.No. 56(8)/2024-DUAC dated 04.09.2024. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The submission states that the height of the parapet wall at the terrace level will be 3.0m to conceal the services. However, the height should comply with the Unified Building Bye-Laws 2016. Additionally, to enhance aesthetics and functionality, the wall should be designed to avoid a bulky appearance, incorporating fenestration and appropriate safety features, including railings.

b) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/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, 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.

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 DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission
2. The Commission approved that revised layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 24, 2005 and accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on March 13, 2007. 
3. The proposal for Installation of Tapomurti Shri Nilkanth Varni Statue at Cultural Complex Akshardham received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Given that the pedestal/base of the statue is large, seamless pedestrian movement all around shall be ensured.

b) The edges of the central landscaped median facing the statue’s curvature could be adjusted to allow for sufficient width on both sides to facilitate seamless movement for users.

c) Given that the statue will be installed in a public space frequented by numerous visitors daily, it is essential to ensure the structural safety of the statue.

1. The DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on August 28, 2020, specific observations were given.
3. 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-26082022042 dated 03.09.2020, and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided a presentation and clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held online, presentation and the submission made including drawings, documentations, and the photographs, 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 plans proposal at its meeting held on May 24, 1996, specific observations were given. The proposal for NOC for completion was considered by the sub-committee at its meeting held on May 18, 2005, observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Sub-Committee communicated vide DUAC letter no: 48(34)/2004-DUAC dated 30.05.2005. Based on the submission made including drawings, documentations, and the photographs, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the proposal for NOC at the Completion stage was initially reviewed in 2005, but it was not accepted due to non-compliance with the sub-committee's observations. The proposal has now been resubmitted after nearly 20 years.

b) The architect in their project report has indicated that:

“…….Remarks :- The society want the FAR extension but DDA want completion certificate of existing building before FAR extension…..”

The Commission observed that several temporary extensions have been added to the society, covering balconies and adversely affecting the aesthetics of the area. These temporary coverings must be removed, and façade shall be made as per original sanction before resubmitting the case for NOC for completion.

c) Additionally, the current submission does not clearly indicate whether it pertains to partial or full completion. The proposal must be revised to clearly delineate the areas for which the NOC for Completion is being sought to ensure a better understanding of the submission.

d) The Commission noted that while the complex contains multiple residential building blocks, only a few have been photographed, and these images are cropped and lack clarity. Since the proposal is at the Completion stage, annotated, uncut photographs of the building blocks (for which the NOC is being sought) from all sides must be submitted for the Commission's review.

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 received at the completion stage is lacking in clarity regarding which area require NOC for Completion. Additionally, there have been unauthorized additions, coverings, exposed outdoor air-conditioning units, and similar modifications made after formal approval.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

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

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout plan of hospital at its meeting held on November 23, 2015, and the building plans proposal for additions and alterations (additions of two lifts) at its meeting held on November 27, 2020, observations were given. 
3. The building plans proposals for additions and alterations (Relocation of DG and substation, construction of MLCP to accommodate 650 cars, construction of new hospital (S+6 floors), construction of bio-medical waste store, construction of Sulabh sauchalaya under Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, to regularise the flu centre (temporary structure built during Covid) received (online) at 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 and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) The Commission noted that the submission regarding the construction of a bio-medical waste storage facility, the construction of a Sulabh toilet under the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, and the regularization of the flu centre (a temporary structure built during Covid) lacks clarity and inadequate documentation, including drawings and site photographs of the areas where interventions are planned. These details shall be clearly presented, with appropriate documentation, including 3D views, for the Commission’s review.

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

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, 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.

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, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, 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.
 

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

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) 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.