Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1782nd meeting held on 10.10.2024.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1782nd meeting held on 10.10.2024 were discussed.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission
2. The layout and buildings plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The Commission noted with serious concern the project architect's oversight, as the proposal is at the formal stage, yet the site photographs submitted belong to a different location, namely the DTC colony at Shadipur. The Commission has taken this negligence by the architect in submitting incorrect documentation as part of a formal proposal very seriously. Submitting incorrect photographs reflects a casual and unprofessional approach to the proposal submission (formal stage) process.

b) The Commission observed that the campus consists of multiple building blocks serving diverse purposes, including school building, principal residence, vice-principal residence, boys and girl’s dormitory, guest house, type II and III quarters along with other ancillary facilities for higher secondary school. It emphasized that the proposal cannot be reviewed in isolation and must be evaluated in relation to the surrounding facilities. Therefore, the Commission recommends that 3D views of the site be superimposed with the actual existing context of the surroundings, incorporating road networks and nearby structures. This will provide a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the proposal within its environment, ensuring a clearer and more informed assessment.

c) The quality of the 3D views is inadequate for a submission received at the formal stage, it appears to be too sketchy, with unclear scale, proportions, and materials. Annotated 3D views specifying the materials intended for the façade are required. The current submission lacks these annotations, making it difficult to assess the materials and their impact on the complex's visual and urban aesthetics. A sufficient number of clearly marked, self-explanatory, annotated 3D views, including bird's-eye views, should be provided to better illustrate the proposed design scheme and align with the proposal drawings for clearer understanding.

d) Given that the campus comprises multiple building blocks with diverse functions, including school building, principal residence, vice-principal residence, boys and girl’s dormitory, guest house, type II and III quarters along with other ancillary facilities for higher secondary school, each block will have its own distinct architectural vocabulary, form, proportions, and characteristics. To ensure a comprehensive review, the Commission requires that each building be presented with a detailed design scheme, including plans, elevations, sections, and annotated 3D views from all sides (including nighttime views). This will allow for a comprehensive and informed evaluation of the proposal.

e) 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 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.

f) The provision of proposed parking not clearly understood. It needs to be clearly indicated in appropriate plans with other parking details including the location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

g) The site layout indicates surface parking along the boundary and within the central covered courtyard (marked as no. 12 in the site plan). The Commission has expressed concern that all required parking has been allocated on the surface, which it discourages to help prevent flooding and enhance groundwater recharge.

h) Site-level details are incomplete; internal circulation, landscaping, and services are not shown in the submission. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation within the site should be clearly outlined to ensure conflict-free pedestrian movement, especially as students will be frequent users. A comprehensive mobility circulation plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular pathways from the site entrance to various buildings is required for better understanding of the movement patterns. This plan should clearly indicate the segregation of pedestrian and vehicular flows.

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) The entry and exit points to the site are unclear; separate entry/exit areas for buses, staff, and residential blocks should be clearly indicated on the relevant layout plans. Additionally, the design of the gate and boundary wall may impact the overall aesthetics of the complex, so detailed information on gate/grill design, material applications, and coordination with plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views is required.

k) All residential blocks, including principal residence, vice-principal residence, boys and girl’s dormitory, guest house, type II and III quarters must include provisions for appropriately screening for drying clothes.

l) The design has been developed without taking structural aspects into account, which may impact the layout of the internal spaces. It is recommended that the structural arrangement of the building blocks be included in the respective floor plans to provide a clearer understanding of how the proposed design will function.

m) Air-conditioners can detract from the building's façade. To prevent this, provisions must be incorporated into the design at this stage to accommodate the outdoor units for all proposed blocks (including school) without compromising the aesthetics. A comprehensive scheme should be submitted, detailing the placement, screening, and materials used for the screening, illustrated through plans, elevations, and 3D views for each block.

n) Some toilets lack provisions for plumbing shafts. All toilets should include plumbing shafts with proper screening to ensure all plumbing remains concealed.

o) The submitted landscape plans lack clarity in conveying the overall landscape scheme. The site’s landscaping should be enhanced with appropriate hardscape and softscape treatments. These elements should be clearly detailed in the respective drawings, including information on planted and existing trees, levels, and species types, all presented at an appropriate scale. This should also align with point number six of the CPAA (Criteria for Project Assessment and Approval) as outlined on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

p) Provisions be made for public toilets etc., shall be as per prevailing provisions as stipulated under Unified Building Bye-laws for Delhi-2016 (UBBL). The same shall be elucidated with appropriate details including plans, elevations, sections, 3D views, materiality etc. for the review of the Commission.

q) 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.

r) 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.

s) 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.

3. The Commission expresses disappointment with the submission received at the formal stage, noting it is highly sketchy, incomplete, and lacks clarity, detail, and thoroughness. The architect is advised to review the twenty-point criteria outlined by the Commission (available on the DUAC website) when preparing submissions. Additionally, the architect should address each of the observations noted above and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The 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. The Commission did not accept the NOC for completion at its meeting held on October 01, 2024, specific observations given.
4. The proposal for NOC for completion (pertaining to the additions and alterations approved in the meeting held on February 26, 2020) was scrutinised at the completion stage (part), alongside responses to previous observations communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-27092458040, F. No. 58(40)/2024-DUAC dated 07.10.2024. Based on the submitted documentation, including drawings and photographs, the proposal for NOC for completion (Part-pertaining to the additions and alterations approved in the meeting held on February 26, 2020) is found to be accepted.

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 plan proposal received online at the formal stage for additions and alterations (Proposed first to third floors over existing basement and ground floor) was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the proposal is for additions/alterations, but no previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.

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.

c) 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.

d) Entry to the building at the ground floor level is not clear from the layout plans as the steps leading to entry (if any) and the entrance door are not marked. The entry to the lobby and drawing/dining area is not understood, due to incomplete drawings and documentation. 

e) Door openings are missing in the submission thus the functioning of the layout is not clear.  Also, the levels are not marked in the floor plans. The submitted drawings need to be detailed and complete in all respect including door window openings, floor levels, location of entry/exit steps etc. to ensure complete submission at formal stage. 

f) The existing, proposed and demolition is not clear due to lack of a proper legend. All the proposed changes to be clearly shown in the plans, sections, and elevations to make the proposal self-explanatory. In case the existing is retained, it shall be clearly marked in the respective plans/sections/elevations and superimposed on the proposed to show existing vs proposed.

g) The plumbing shafts of the kitchen and toilets are missing in the submitted drawings. Location of the plumbing shaft along with its screening mechanism to be marked to conceal the plumbing/waste pipes so that they do not mar the aesthetics. 

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

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

j) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels 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 design scheme submitted at the formal stage lacks clarity, detail, and comprehensiveness. The architect is advised to address all the observations mentioned above and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.
    

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal (phase I) at its meeting held on April 28, 2010 and approved the layout and building plans proposal (phase II) at its meeting held on July 11, 2018, observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion (for Block 1 to 8) received (online) at the completion stage and a discussion was held with proponent (online), who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission.  Based on the discussion held (online), the documentation, including drawings and photographs, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Completion is being requested for Blocks 1 to 8 of the institutional campus. Based on the submitted site photographs, it has been noted that construction is still underway in some of the building blocks (with the exception of Blocks 2, 3, and 4), including civil work and landscaping.

b) Considering the current status of the work on the campus, it was decided to accept the NOC for completion (for Blocks 2, 3, and 4 only).

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 plan proposal received online at the formal stage for additions and alterations (Proposed first to third floors over existing basement and ground floor, upgradation of facade) was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the proposal is for additions/alterations but no previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.

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.

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

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 NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The ‘Lal Bangla-I at Delhi Golf Club’ and ‘Tomb of Sayyid Abid at Delhi Golf Club’ are listed Grade-I heritage building at Serial No. 16 and 33 respectively, in the Gazette notification no. F. No. 4/2/2009/UD/I 6565 dated October 1, 2009 issued by the Department of Urban Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
3. The proposal for additions/alterations was approved by the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) at its meeting held on September 18, 2024 and specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposals for additions and alterations (addition of lift to the existing annexe block, proposed slab extension and addition of ramp) received (online) formal stage was scrutinised, the following observation is 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 i.e. addition of lift to the annexe block, proposed slab extension and addition of ramp.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the proposal for the layout and building plans with respect to the redevelopment of the GPRA colony at Nauroji Nagar at its meeting held on June 14, 2017. The Commission accepted the proposal for NOC for Completion (Part–Towers B, C, D & E) at its meeting held on December 14, 2023, NOC for Completion (Part-Tower I) on March 11, 2024, NOC for Completion (Part-Tower F (up to 7^th floor only)) on May 02, 2024 and NOC for Completion (Part-Tower A) on July 25, 2024.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion (Part – Towers G and H) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinized. Based on the submission made including drawings/documentation/photographs/artwork etc., the proposal for the NOC for Completion (Part-Towers G and H) is found to be acceptable.

1. The DDA forwarded the proposal (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal during its meeting on March 19, 2001 and subsequently accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on April 12, 2005. It approved building plans for additions and alterations at its meeting held on January 04, 2019.
3. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (extension of bedrooms, addition and extension of balconies) received at the formal stage was scrutinised and, 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 the initial proposal for additions and alterations was received and subsequently approved by the Commission during its meeting on January 4, 2019. However, no NOC for completion of that proposal has been received to date. With the current submission for additional additions/alterations, it is unclear which areas were previously approved in 2019 and which are currently under review. For clarity, a comparative submission should be provided, clearly distinguishing the areas approved in 2019 from those now under consideration. Additionally, to aid the Commission’s review and records, the architect is required to submit the previously sanctioned plans as approved on January 4, 2019.

c) Discrepancies in the submitted documentation have been noticed. According to the project title and sheet title, the proposal pertains to additions/alterations for bedroom extensions and balcony additions/expansions; however, the project report indicates:

“.…The proposal is for approval to regularize area under enhance F.A.R. and addition of balconies and utilize area for bathroom…..”

As the proposal is at the formal stage, there are inconsistencies in the submission. It is should be ensured that the submissions at this stage be consistent and coordinated, including the project report, plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views, before they are forwarded for the Commission's consideration.

d) Upon reviewing, the Commission observed significant deviations on the external façade, including temporary coverings made of PVC sheets and aluminium sheds, extended balconies, and exposed pipes & outdoor air conditioning units. These elements detract from the façade's aesthetics, negatively affecting the urban environment, and are therefore discouraged and deemed unacceptable by the Commission.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage has inconsistencies, lack of clarity, significant deviations in the façade, and uncertainty regarding the building parts that require approval for additions or alterations, the Commission could not review it judiciously. The architect is advised to address all the observations mentioned above and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

Buildings plans proposal in respect of Police Post for Delhi Police near Moti Bagh Metro Station, Ring Road. (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 (formal) at its meeting held on September 26, 2024, observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal plans proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized, along with previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL- 23092424008 dated 03.10.2024. Based on the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) A section showing construction details of the stepped planter and top coping with inward slope to be submitted at the time of formal approval to ensure the drainage is efficiently designed and does not spoil the external walls due to seepage and rainwater.

b) Stone coping suggested in window to avoid spoiling of the façade from bird droppings and rainwater.

c) Details of gate and boundary ie. plan, elevation, sections and 3d views to be submitted at the time of formal approval.

d) Details of aluminium louvres and jaalis used in the façade to be submitted at the time of formal approval.

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

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, 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.

g) 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.

h) 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. The architect is advised to incorporate all the observations above, including those communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL- 23092424008 dated 03.10.2024 in the next submission i.e., formal submission along with a point wise incorporation for the consideration of the Commission.

Building plans proposal in respect of 150 Bedded Critical Care Hospital and Infectious Diseases Block, Trauma Centre near Doctors’ Hostel, Ansari Nagar, AIIMS. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve building plan proposal (formal) at its meeting held on September 12, 2024, observations were given. 
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized, along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-09092462016 dated 19.09.2024 and a discussion was held with the architect (online), who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held (online), replies submitted, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that unsatisfactory compliances to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no:  OL-09092462016 dated 19.09.2024 has been given.

b) It was noted that despite the Commission’s previous observations, double and triple stack parking is still proposed at the surface in the center of the CCHB block as well as along the boundary wall to meet parking requirements, compromising the aesthetics of the complex. Therefore, the Commission reiterated its previous observations as communicated in the meeting held on 12.09.2024: 

“…As an alternative, it is suggested to relocate all parking to the basement (with the option of double or triple stack) to free up surface space for safer and more seamless pedestrian and vehicle movement. Access to the basement parking can be provided via ramp or car lift. The cleared surface area can then be utilized for soft landscaping, helping to mitigate issues such as urban flooding……”.

The Commission discourages surface parking as it increases hard surfaces on a site, contributing to issues like urban flooding. To help prevent flooding and enhance groundwater recharge, all parking requirements for the CCHB block should be accommodated in the basement beneath the building footprint.

c) The material application on the building façades is unclear, as details on the façade materials are missing in the 3D views. These should be elucidated with the necessary details for better understanding of the Commission.

d) Some toilets lack provisions for plumbing shafts. All toilets should include plumbing shafts with proper screening to ensure all plumbing remains concealed.

e) The terrace floor plan shows provision of solar panel which are not reflected in the 3d views. Updated 3d views showing solar panels, water tanks and other utilities located on the terrace to be submitted. 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) 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.

g) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. Overall, the current submission lacks clarity, details and comprehensiveness, and previous observations remain non-compliant. The architect is thus advised to address all observations above including communicated vide DUAC observation letter no:  OL-09092462016 dated 19.09.2024 and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

Completion plans proposal in respect of Tivoli Garden Motel building on Khasra No. 646/1, 646/2, 647, 648, 649, 650, 651, 652/1,652/2, 652/3, & 653 at Village Chattarpur.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission accepted building plans proposal for additions and alterations (conceptually) at its meeting held on September 18, 2019 and approved the building plans proposal for additions and alterations (formal) at its meeting held on October 23, 2019, observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage and a discussion was held with the proponent (online), who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held (online), the documentation, including drawings and actual photographs, the proposal for NOC for Completion is found to be accepted.

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

Buildings plans proposal in respect of Residential Building at 7/38, MPL No. 4433-4434, Ward no. XI, Ansari Road, Daryaganj.

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.
3. The building plan proposal received online at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

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

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.
 

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