Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1788th meeting held on 21.11.2024.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1788th meeting held on 21.11.2024 were discussed.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on January 13,2016 and revised building plans at its meeting held on September 19, 2018.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meetings held on September 26, 2024 and October 30, 2024, respectively, specific observations were given.
4. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-24092458039, F.no 58(39)/2024-DUAC dated 04.11.2024. Based on the replies submitted, documentation, including drawings and photographs, the proposal for NOC for completion is found to be accepted.

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 and November 07, 2024, respectively, 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-05112423010 dated 11.11.2024. Based on the replies submitted, and the submission made, 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.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on July 11, 2024, specific observations were made.
3. The building plan 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-10072424052 dated 16.07.2024 and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco WebEx meetings, during which clarifications were provided to the Commission’s queries. Based on the discussion held (online), the documentation, including drawings and photographs, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for building with basement and G+3 floors which houses facilities including offices, auditoriums, double height atrium, conference and exhibition hall, classrooms, dining halls etc.

b) It has been observed by the Commission that the upper floors of the building have too many architectural elements namely, jharokhas and chhatris placed very closely, which makes the façade look noisy and cluttered. It is strongly suggested to reduce the number of jharokhas and chhatris to ensure the façade aesthetics.

c) As a lot of services/utilities including solar panels, water tanks are proposed at the terrace, their screening mechanism and location to be clearly marked on appropriate plans while ensuring the services are not visible at eye level. Also, 3d views at bird’s eye level to be supplemented showing the services/utilities.

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

e) 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, DG Set, DG exhaust 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 NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal (Formal) at its meetings held on June 15, 2011.
3. The revised building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction received online at the formal stage was scrutinized, and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco WebEx meetings, during which clarifications were provided to the Commission’s queries. Based on the discussion held (online), the documentation, including drawings and photographs, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Since the site is located inside LBZ boundary, the applicable norms/guidelines for LBZ area shall be followed.

b) To ensure clarity regarding the materiality in the façade, it shall be ensured that the 3d views be clearly annotated mentioning details about the materials/specifications.

c) The proposed boundary wall detail seems to have recessed parts with detailed jaali patterns, which might become difficult to maintain due to issues like dust gathering, water marks post rainfall etc. It is suggested to simplify the boundary wall detail in a manner that it becomes easy to maintain.

d) The 3d views show large hexagonal mural on the façade. Since the mural would be exposed to the external surface and has certain depth, it will be prone to gathering dust and water marks post rainfall in the long run. Thus, it is suggested to remove the mural to ensure a low maintenance façade.  

e) The submission lacks provision of Swachh Bharat toilets which needs to be located along the outer edge of the site facing the access road, as per the prevailing Unified Building Byelaws 2016. The same needs to be incorporated in the revised submission with details of location in the site, detailed plans, elevations, sections and 3d views of the Swachh Bharat toilet highlighting the materiality.

f) Upon detailed observations it was noted that the proposed basement is not efficient and functional. The provision of multiple ramps is leading to space wastage which can otherwise be used for parking. It is suggested to reduce the number of ramps and accommodate a greater number of parking. Also, the turning radius in the ramp at the upper left corner seems inadequate for vehicular movement and thus needs to be revised as per regulations.

g) Additionally, the placement of the columns in the centre of the corridor will become conflicting with vehicular movement and would obstruct car parking. The columns and the parking bays to be designed to ensure unobstructed vehicular movement.

h) The 3rd and 4th floor plans show provision of attached toilets with rooms. The shaft for these toilets seems to abruptly end as their termination is not clear. Details of drainage and termination of plumbing, rainwater and waste pipes to be explained through appropriate plans and sections.

i) A detailed landscape plan showing information on planted trees, existing trees, ground levels, and the types of species, all presented at an appropriate scale (in terms of point nos. Six of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

j) The 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.

k) 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.

l) 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 lack of clarity, incomprehensiveness and incompleteness of the submission received at the formal stage, the proposal could not be reviewed judiciously. The architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations. It is requested that the architect submit a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission in a clear and point-by-point manner.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the Indian Institute of Mass Communication at its meeting held on August 18, 1982, specific observations were given.
3. The layout and buildings plan proposal for Academic and Hostel Block received online at the formal stage for Academic and Hostel Block was scrutinised, and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco WebEx meetings, during which clarifications were provided to the Commission’s queries. Based on the discussion held (online), the documentation, including drawings and photographs, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The proposal is for academic block building (G+4 floors) and hostel block building (G+5 floors) and is part of larger existing campus. 

b) As the proposed blocks form part of an existing campus, it is necessary to understand the surrounding context. The submission shall incorporate details of the surrounding areas including building blocks, tree cover, rocky terrain etc. and other site-specific elements to understand the site setting. 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.

c) The proposed artwork on the façade seems to be too imposing and overpowers the aesthetics of the building. It is strongly suggested to remove the mural artwork from all facades. Alternatively, electronic screens may be installed for dynamic, digital graphics (as the campus is a multimedia institution) or artworks including sculptures maybe installed at the eye level.  

d) The 3d views show provision of a large space frame above the proposed blocks. Details of the proposed structure, which is huge and imposing, are missing in the submission. Details of fixing of the structure (at terrace level), materiality, size and design, cleaning and maintenance mechanisms, termination details etc. to be explained in a comprehensive scheme as the structure would have a direct bearing on the aesthetics due to its large scale and prominent placement. 

e) Details of the glass canopy at entrance of the academic block including its design and fixing, materiality, termination details explaining drainage of water etc. are missing and need to be included in the submission. 

f) Details of planter beds around the proposed blocks are not shown ie. their size, construction detail including drainage and termination. The same shall be incorporated in the revised submission. 

g) The 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) 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, due to the lack of clarity, incomprehensiveness and incompleteness of the submission received at the formal stage, the proposal could not be reviewed judiciously. The architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations. It is requested that the architect submit a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission in a clear and point-by-point manner.
    

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the demolition and reconstruction plan at its meeting held on September 09, 2021, and observations were given. 
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco WebEx meetings, during which clarifications were provided to the Commission’s queries. Based on the discussion held (online), the documentation, including drawings and photographs, the proposal for NOC for completion is found to be accepted.
    

1. The NDMC 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.
3. The building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction received online at the formal stage was scrutinized, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Upon detailed observations, it was found that drawings of another project (namely Building no. 14, Hailey road) have been submitted as part of the proposal. Commission took serious note of the casual approach of the architect towards incorrect submission and decided not to consider the proposal. 

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

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 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 Commission decided not to consider the proposal at the formal stage due to incorrect submission. 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, November 07, 2024, and November 14, 2024, respectively; observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (extension of bedrooms, dining room,  addition of store, addition  and extension of balconies in blocks A,B,D and E,  and extension of bedrooms,  addition of store, addition  and extension of balconies in block C and Community Facility block in open area) 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 27.11.2024. 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 27.11.2024 which is not appreciated.

c) The layout plan and 3d views show provision of a proposed community block (marked community I) which appears to have been carved out from the common green areas. In absence of any forwarding comment regarding the same from DDA, the Commission could not review the proposal holistically. Also, from the submitted 3d views of the Community block, it’s architectural vocabulary does not seem to match the existing building complex. It shall be ensured that the vocabulary of the proposed block matches the existing to maintain harmony in design. Along with, details of air-conditioning mechanism of the community block are not shown making the proposal incomplete. Being at formal stage, details including plans, sections, all side elevations, 3d views along with materiality to be shown for all proposed developments.  

d) 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 submission is ambiguous, lacks clarity, still has discrepancies 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, 11.11.2024 and 27.11.2024, respectively, and furnish pointwise incorporation and reply.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the Redevelopment of GPRA Colony, Sarojini Nagar at its meeting held on January 17, 2020, specific observations were given.
3. The revised layout and buildings plan proposal for Social Infrastructure received online at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for provision of social infrastructure including central library, sports complex, school of excellence, government co-ed senior secondary school, and senior citizen recreational and creche.

b) As the proposal is for multiple buildings within a common complex it is important to understand their surrounding context to appreciate the proposal.

c) Upon detailed observations, it has been noted that all side 3D views of all building blocks (as mentioned in the project report) 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, for all the proposed building blocks need to be submitted.

d) Elevations of some buildings including library are missing in the submission. All sides elevations, detailed sections along with skin sections, for all building blocks, to be submitted to provide clarity in the submission.

e) 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.

f) Only reference images of artwork have been submitted in the proposal. The 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) Provision of Swachh Bharat toilet to be as per guidelines in the prevalent Unified building bye-laws 2016.

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 Commission decided to not consider the proposal at the formal stage due to an incomplete submission. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations of the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation and reply.