Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1784th meeting held on 24.10.2024.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1784th meeting held on 24.10.2024 were discussed.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No prior records of approval (Formal/Completion) have been found in the Commission's available records. The Commission did not accept the concept of the building plans proposal for additions and alterations in its meeting held on June 20, 2024 and July 18,2024 respectively, provided specific observations.
3. The building plan proposal for additions and alterations (alterations at ground floor and proposed first, second and third floor over existing Basement + Ground floor) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Unsuitable letter no: OL-09072427041 dated 24.07.2024, 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) It has been observed from the submission that entry doors to the building shown at the ground floor are very narrow in size. It shall be ensured that the size of the entry door to be wide enough to provide proper access to pedestrians and two-wheeler parking.

c) 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.

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

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No prior records of approval (Formal/Completion) have been found in the Commission's available records. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on September 26,2024, observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal 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-23092423008 dated 03.10.2024. Based on the replies submitted, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal has been received for residential building comprising of basement for parking, storage and G+3 floors.

b) The parking area at the ground floor is shown as completely hard-paved. It is suggested to instead use grass pavers, below the parking area to reduce issues like urban flooding and heat island effect.

c) The entry at the rear end towards the parking area shows an entrance door to the building through steps in the drawing. Upon detailed observations, it was noticed that the level of the ground floor shown in the building plans do not match with those shown in the 3d views, thus an inconsistency is found in the submission i.e. the plinth level in the 3d view seems to be higher than that shown in the ground floor plan. Updated drawings with corrected and co-ordinated 3d views to be submitted to ensure clarity in the submission.

d) Details of boundary wall and entry gate are missing in the submission. The design of gate and boundary wall 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.

e) The quality of design is not appreciated i.e. the design including façade of the building is not aesthetically pleasing, but seems to be of mediocre quality, and thus needs to be improved to ensure urban aesthetics are maintained. Design of the long, continuous balcony without any vertical members, materiality etc. needs to be revised. Also, elements like vertical bands with arched top makes the façade look cluttered. The façade is suggested to be redesigned to make it look simpler while incorporating all elements including jaalis for screening of shafts, steps to entry door, vertical members in balcony railing and other elements in the façade. 

f) The kitchen and toilets at the rear end have been designed without plumbing shafts, resulting in exposed pipes on the façade that could mar the aesthetics. A suitable design mechanism should be implemented to create shafts for kitchen and toilet areas to conceal all plumbing/rainwater/waste pipes, along with appropriate screening solutions. These details should be clearly explained and submitted for review

g) It has been observed that the drawings show provision of two attached toilets in one of the rooms and no attached toilets in two rooms, the same need to be relooked at.

h) Universal accessibility to be ensured within the complex, so that all users can access the upper floors by provision of appropriate number of ramps, lifts 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 submission received at the formal stage is very sketchy, has inconsistencies, lacks clarity & is incomprehensible; thus, the Commission could not appreciate it judiciously. Also, some of the observations from the previous meetings have not been complied with. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations, and those communicated through DUAC observation letters OL-23092423008 dated 03.10.2024, and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on March 24, 1979 and accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on July 05, 1991, specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for addition of second floor in Block-C and addition of new lift.

b) Upon detailed observations, many discrepancies have been noticed in the submission. There appears to be inconsistencies between the drawings and the 3d views, thus making the submission incomprehensible. The following inconsistencies have been observed in the submission:

i) The 3d views show a modified and revised boundary wall, whereas the drawings and the project report do not propose new boundary wall.

ii) The proposed 3d views show new architectural elements like fins in the façade which are not reflected in the plans and elevations. Also, windows shown in the elevation do not match with those shown in the 3d views.

iii) The submitted sections and elevations are very sketchy and do not match with the details shown in the proposed 3d views.

c) Also, the location from where the section is cut is unclear, thus making it incomprehensible. Detailed and co-ordinated sections, elevations and 3d views (all four sides) to be submitted, clearly explaining the areas requiring approval.

d) Provision of parking in the site is not clear i.e. the drawing shows cars parked parallel along the building line while leaving very narrow space for vehicular circulation. Also, some cars are parked in the middle of the driveway (between block C and landscaped area), which appears to a random arrangement for car parking which is not acceptable. Detailed parking plans showing location of requisite car parking along with their movement within the site and to/from the entry gate to be submitted in the revised submission.

e) The proposed terrace plan does not show mumty and provision of solar panels, thus making it an incomplete submission.

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. Overall, the submission received at the formal stage is very sketchy, has inconsistencies, lacks clarity & is incomprehensible; thus, the Commission could not appreciate it judiciously. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans in respect of Govt. of India Press, Minto Road at its meeting held on May 18, 2018, and approved the revised building plans proposal at its meeting held on August 16, 2019.The Commission accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on October 14, 2021, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal in respect of Godown building at its meeting held on May 25, 2023, observations were given.
4. The revised building plans proposal (in respect of godown) 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-22052362010 dated 30.05.2023. Based on the replies submitted, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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.

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

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

1. The 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 Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on October 24, 2024, observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (extension of bedrooms, addition and extension of balconies) received 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-22102422102, F. No. 22(102)/2024-DUAC dated 30.10.2024. Based on the replies submitted, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal has once again been received for addition/alteration for group housing complex. The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations, it did not consider or cover the existing construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) The Commission observed that the proposal is currently at the formal stage and has been resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing the previous observations outlined in the DUAC letter no: OL-22102422102, F. No. 22(102)/2024-DUAC dated 30.10.2024 which is not appreciated.

c) The earlier observations of Commission meeting no. 1784 vide letter dated October 30, 2024 have not been complied with i.e.

“….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…..”

The above-mentioned discrepancy has again been found in the current submission i.e. the submitted project report mentions proposal seeking regularisation of areas under enhanced FAR whereas the submission has been received for addition/alteration. From the submitted site photographs, it appears that the proposed extension of balconies and other areas (as marked red in drawings) has already been constructed in many parts of the complex. The Commission took serious note of the information mismatch (in project report and submitted drawings) which is misleading and thus the Commission is unable to appreciate the proposal judiciously.

d) It is again reiterated that:

“…….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.

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…..”

e) It is should be ensured that the submissions at this stage (formal) be consistent and coordinated, including the project report, plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views, before they are forwarded for the Commission's consideration.

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.

5. Overall, the current submission lacks clarity and previous observations remain non-compliant. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations, and those communicated through DUAC observation letters no: OL-22102422102, F. No. 22(102)/2024-DUAC dated 30.10.2024, and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.