Action Taken Report with respect to the minutes of the 1786th meeting held on 07.11.2024.

1. Action Taken Report regarding Minutes of 1786th meeting held on 07.11.2024 were discussed.

1. he North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the revised layout of the Master plan of Delhi University, North Campus, at its meeting held on January 06, 2010, and approved the building plans for the Faculty of Technology, North Campus, at its meeting held on March 23, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal forms part of a larger complex whose master plan was approved on January 6, 2010. However, it was noted that the plot dimensions are not indicated. Additionally, the plot demarcation is missing, leaving the boundary extents unclear. Since the submission is at the formal stage, details such as plot size, boundary extents, site surroundings, and access roads must be clearly marked on the respective layout plans.

b) Two large blocks of area have been delineated as services in the site plan, but the details are missing, including photographs of the area, the types of services, their exact location, plans, elevations, sections , screening mechanisms, 3D views, etc. All these services could affect urban and environmental aesthetics and thus need to be elucidated with appropriate details.

c) Since the proposal has been revised to minimise, tree cutting, a detailed survey plan shall be included in the submission, with details of the number of trees, tree species, and number of trees cut/retained/transplanted incorporated into a detailed landscape plan.

d) The submitted 3D views are sketchy and incomplete. They do not depict the materiality of the façade or show the surrounding context. Also, all side 3D views are missing, thus making it an incomplete submission. Detailed 3D views showing materiality, typical details of architectural elements on the façade, and the surrounding site context, including a bird' s-eye view, need to be submitted.

e) The layout plan indicates 112 cars in tower parking and 8 in stilt parking, crucial details regarding the tower parking, such as accessibility, material specifications, screening, and detailed 3D views, are missing, rendering the submission incomplete. Comprehensive 3D views of all building blocks (including the tower block and stilt area) and the entire complex, including bird's-eye perspectives and nighttime visuals, must be provided for the consideration of the Commission.

f) The architectural elements at the ground floor level visible in 3d views are not reflected in the architectural plans, thus showing a mismatch. Revised floor plans shall be submitted after incorporating all architectural elements to ensure a complete and comprehensive submission.

g) Additionally, to submit comprehensive skin sections that provide a detailed understanding of the facade's elevation, including the materials employed, details of window treatments, structural glass fixing details, details of overhangs, etc. By providing details on these elements, a comprehensive overview of the architectural design and facade can be obtained.

h) The submission lacks Details of the gate and boundary wall, including plans, elevations, sections, 3D views, and materiality. Since the proposal is at the formal stage, complete details of the gate and boundary wall need to be submitted as they affect the urban and environmental aesthetics of the complex and its surroundings.

i) A complete scheme of signage across the entire complex, elaborated on their location, materiality, size, and placement in different parts of the complex, including the entrance, must be submitted.

j) 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) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

l) All plumbing pipes, DG set, DG exhaust 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) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. Overall, the submission received at the formal stage is very sketchy, inconsistent, lacks clarity, and 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. No previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission. The Commission did not approve the proposal at its meeting held on September 05, 2024; observations were given.
3. The proposal received online at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-28082462015 dated 11.09.2024. Based on the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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-28082462015 dated 11.09.2024 including-

“.... Although the proposal has been submitted at the formal stage, these interventions lack clarity, are not self-explanatory, and are not accompanied by adequate documentation, including 3D views, elevations, sections, materials used, drawings/documentation, etc. These interventions should be self-explanatory and supported by the necessary documentation to facilitate a judicious review by the Commission…...”.

b) Since the proposal is for a large complex with various areas/blocks, adequate details for each area/block, including all side 03 views, are required to clarify the proposed interventions.

A.  TYPICAL TOILET BLOCK (BLOCK NO. 1 TO 5):

i) Since the toilet blocks are spread at various locations across the site, their location in the context of the surroundings is to be submitted.

ii) The drawings mention renovation of the existing toilet, whereas it is observed that the proposal is for demolition and reconstruction of toilet blocks. Also, the submission does not mention the reasons for the renovation/reconstruction. The submission lacks details of the terrace, including plans, provision of services, screening, etc.

iii) The overall design of the toilet blocks needs to be improved. The details of column termination are not provided and, therefore, unclear. Details of column termination shall be provided, including the base and its fixing in the ground, materiality, size of the column, and construction details.

iv) Only one 3D view of the toilet block has been submitted, which is very sketchy. All side 3D views of the toilet block (including bird's eye views) and a view showing details of the terrace are to be submitted.

v) The proposed design scheme does not clearly describe rainwater drainage and disposal, so it shall be detailed to explain its mechanism.

B.  EXISTING GATE RENOVATION:

i) Only one 3d view of the entrance gate is provided, which is very sketchy and unclear. All side 3d views, including a bird’s eye view, including details of materiality, roof design and its structural details, shall be included to explain the scheme better.

C.  MAINTENANCE OFFICE AND PUBLIC SHELTER:

i) Since the roof design of the maintenance office and public shelter is curved with slopes and angles, it is imperative to provide the details of its design, structure, construction and materiality in the form of an appropriate number of plans, elevations and sections.

ii) The details of column termination, including the base and its fixing in the ground, materiality, size of the column, and their construction detail, are missing and shall be provided in the submission.

iii) All side 3D views of the blocks, including a bird' s-eye view showing the roof detail, are to be submitted.

iv) Detailed elevations of the blocks are missing and need to be provided to ensure a complete submission.

D.  RENOVATION OF EXISTING CAFÉ:

i) Since the proposal is for the renovation of the existing café, it is essential to provide site photographs of the existing building to depict its current condition.

ii) The details of column termination, including the base and its fixing in the ground, materiality, size of the column, and their construction detail, are missing and shall be provided in the submission.

iii) All side 3D views, including a bird eye view showing the terrace details, are to be submitted. Also, the terrace plan for the proposed café block, including details of rainwater provision, services on the terrace, and their screening, is missing from the submission.

iv) The submission lacks elevations of the café showing the façade materiality, height of the structure, and other architectural details.

v) A detailed scheme explaining solid waste management, including storage, treatment, and disposal of kitchen waste arising from the café, is to be submitted.  

E.  SOLAR CAR POSTS:

i) Proposed 3d views of the solar car posts are missing in the submission; instead, reference pictures are provided.

ii) As the solar car posts would be accessed by vehicles, their access and surrounding context shall be explained through key plans and layout plans, including details of entry/exit and their connections to the main entrance of the park.

F.  WOODEN WALKWAYS:

i) The starting/termination points of the walkways are not clear, i.e. which parts are being connected through the walkways, including the parking areas. The same is should be explained with detailed layout plans with superimposed walkways in the surrounding context.

c) Only reference pictures have been given for the signage, which do not depict the actual design scheme. A detailed scheme of signage is to be provided for the entire site, including its location, placement, design, colour scheme, sizing, and materiality. Also, it should be well incorporated into the 3D views to explain the scheme better.

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) as 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, 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 the previous observations remaining non-compliant and the submission's lack of clarity and completeness at the formal stage, the Commission could not review it judiciously and offer their observations. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and those communicated through DUAC observation letter no: OL-28082462015 dated 11.09.2024 and furnish pointwise incorporation and reply.

1. The DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans at its meeting on January 17, 2020, and specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised and. Based on the documentation received, including drawings and photographs, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal has been received for Completion, whereas the project title in the submitted drawings mentions “proposed office building.” Updated drawings with a corrected title shall be submitted to ensure a comprehensive proposal review.

b) The submission lacks Site photographs, including photographs of the Terrace, Basement, and actual Work of Art, along with their locations. To ensure a complete submission, uncropped and annotated site photographs of all blocks, open areas, gate and boundary wall, terrace, and basement showing parking provision, services, and screening must be submitted.

c) Basement photographs along with provision of double stack parking (as approved in earlier approval by DUAC) to be submitted.

d) Approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall be superimposed on the plans/elevations/sections, etc., over the actual built structure on the site, existing and proposed changes made in the design from the approval (by DUAC), to understand the extents of internal deviations as well as external changes made with respect to the sanctioned plan, if any. Scanned Proforma, including Part B and Part C.

e) For a better understanding of the proposal, side-by-side photographs of the constructed building blocks ‘Before (submitted 3d views at the time of DUAC formal approval) and After (current actual built construction)’ are to be provided.

f) Additionally, the submission lacks actual site photographs of the boundary wall, gate, and toilet under the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM).

4. Since the submission at the Completion stage requires complete and updated documentation to receive NOC for completion, it shall be ensured to submit the documents mentioned above/drawings/photographs for a complete submission.
5. Overall, a proposal received at the completion stage could not be reviewed judiciously due to incomplete documentation and a lack of clarity. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations of the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation and reply.

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 April 12, 2005, meeting. It also approved building plans for additions and alterations at its January 04, 2019, meeting.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on October 24, 2024, and November 07, 2024, respectively; observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (extension of bedrooms, addition and extension of balconies in all blocks and Community facilities on stilt and store on all floors of Block 3) 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 11.11.2024. Based on the replies submitted and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal for additions and alterations to the group housing complex—including the extension of bedrooms, the addition and extension of balconies across all blocks, and community facilities on the stilt level and storage on all floors of Block 3—has been resubmitted. The Commission noted that the case for additions and alterations does not account for or include the existing construction on the site, as it pertains exclusively to the proposed modifications.

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 11.11.2024 which is not appreciated.

c) The Commission expressed concern that the proposal is being reviewed for the third time, with the architect resubmitting it without addressing the Commission's previous observations. The resubmission, which contains similar discrepancies as noted earlier, highlights issues with the architect's competence and delays the approval process due to incomplete or inaccurate documentation.

d) It has been reiterated as mentioned in the observations vide letter no. OL-22102422102, F. No. 22(102)/2024-DUAC dated 11.11.2024 namely:

“….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…” 

e) Additionally, the discrepancy observed in the submission, the reply submitted by the architect indicated that:

“………The project report is re-submitted for i) Extension of existing bed room and

ii) Balcony addition / extension…..”

However, the architect in the project report submitted that:

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

This establishes a discrepancy between the architect's intent, the actual work to be envisaged, and the work already executed at the site, which is unacceptable for a proposal under review thrice. The architect needs to prepare a truthful submission for the Commission's review and consideration.

f) As the architect's replies indicate, the submitted site photographs do not indicate which part is Block-C:

“…The NOC for completion of Block-C is not applied because the work is not yet complete. This work will be completed during proposed addition / alteration work…”

However, from the submitted site photographs, there seem to be already constructed additions/alterations. Therefore, the above statement is misleading and incorrect when reviewing a submission thrice, which is not appreciated. The 3D views/plans/elevations shall demarcate which part seeks formal approval for clarity.

g) As observed from the replies submitted by the architect –

“…All temporary coverings made of PVC sheets and aluminium sheds, shall be removed during extension work. The screen to pipes & outdoor A/C shall be Provided”.

While submitting the proposal, it shall be ensured that the screening has been indicated suitably in the design drawings to avoid discrepancies later.

h) The submitted site photographs are not marked with the blocks' names and thus do not provide clarity as to which blocks require modifications/interventions. To provide clarity in the submission, the submitted site photographs shall be clearly annotated with the nomenclature of each block, along with the proposed modifications/interventions.  

i) Further, the Commission observes that the current proposal includes additions and alterations to the existing building, such as extensions to living rooms, bedrooms, and balconies. However, temporary modifications, including balcony coverings and exposed air conditioners, appear to have been added after the NOC was issued for completion, negatively affecting the façade of the complex. It is advised that a comprehensive revamp scheme for the entire façade be prepared, addressing the residents' functional needs while improving its visual appeal and aesthetics. This strategy will help resolve visual inconsistencies between the original and new constructions/additions and discourage future ad-hoc extensions. The proposed design scheme should be submitted to the Commission for review and consideration.

j) It was noted that setback areas designated for the fire tender movement path have been included in ECS calculations to meet parking requirements, which is not permissible. The Commission advises that setback areas or roads intended for fire tender movement must not be considered for ECS calculations. These areas should always remain accessible from vehicular parking to ensure their availability during emergencies. It is recommended that peripheral parking be planned such that a 6.00 m wide setback is consistently unobstructed. All parking provisions must comply with applicable norms, guidelines, and regulations. Alternative solutions should be explored to accommodate existing and proposed parking needs without compromising areas designated for pedestrian and vehicular circulation.

k) Additionally, a separate block of community facilities is proposed in the submission (shown in RED Colour), whose details, including plans, elevations, sections and 3d views, are missing—complete information, including the details mentioned above, to be provided for all proposed areas in the complex.

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

5. Overall, the current submission, which is being reviewed thrice, still has discrepancies and 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 11.11.2024, respectively, and furnish pointwise incorporation and reply.

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 with respect to the 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 regarding the Residential buildings on plot no. 119 and 121, Block No. 171, situated at Sunder Nagar, at its meetings held on July 18, 2024, and October 01, 2024, respectively; specific observations were given. The Commission did not approve the same at the formal stage at its meeting held on August 29, 2024; specific observations were given.
4. The building plan proposal (Residential building on plots no. 119 and 121, Block No. 171) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized, along with previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC OL-27092427064 dated 07.10.2024 and the replies submitted by the architect. Based on the earlier observations, replies submitted, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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.

b) 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

Found conceptually suitable (not limited to these observations)

'The conceptual suitability is only with reference to the mandate of the Commission. However, it would be reassessed at the formal stage based on the 20-point criteria as available on the DUAC website. It would not be a substitute for formal approval of the proposal referred through the concerned local body in terms of section 12 of the DUAC Act, 1973