Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1791st meeting held on 12.12.2024.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1791st meeting held on 12.12.2024 were discussed.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the proposal for Regularisation at its meeting on December 12, 2024, but it accepted the concept of the proposal at its meeting on July 06, 2023, where specific observations were made.
3. However, the Commission's available record does not contain a record of approval (formal) taken.
4. The building plan proposal received (online) for “Regularisation” of already constructed residential flats was scrutinised, and the following observation is made:

a) The Commission noted that construction had already been done at the site without formal approval. Since the MCD forwarded it for consideration, the Commission reviewed the proposal based on aesthetics and found it acceptable.

1. The EDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission's available record does not contain a record of approval (formal) taken. 
3. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a third floor on an existing building comprising of B+G+2 floors) received (online) at the formal 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) and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The Commission noted that the proposal for adding a third floor above an existing building comprising (B+G+2 floors) has come for consideration, but no record of previous approvals taken (formal and completion) was found in the Commission's available record. Approvals taken, if any, shall be submitted for information and records of the Commission. 

b) It was also noted that photographs do not adequately capture the existing construction at the site. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides, including the basement, terrace, and all set-back areas (photographs should be taken from the terrace), and photographs a large ramp  on the ground floor for access to the building to understand the existing site situation better.  

c) The parking statement states that 23 ECS will be accommodated on-site. However, the parking plan does not allocate any space for them. Since the proposal is at the formal stage, an alternative design scheme must be developed to meet all parking requirements of the site (both existing and proposed) and submitted for the Commission's review. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

d) Discrepancy observed in the submission received at the formal stage: the front setback does not show a large ramp provided in the front on the ground floor, and the landscape plan shows a green portion where existing & proposed car parking is envisaged. The submission shall be corrected, and the correlated submission, including plans, elevations, sections, 3D views, etc., shall be submitted for the consideration of the Commission.

e) Elevations and sections do not clarify the submission; the proposal is for additions/alterations to the existing building. The drawings showing existing & proposed changes should be superimposed on the existing structure to highlight the proposed modifications clearly with proper annotations specifying materials to be used and corresponding to proposal drawings to be submitted to ensure clarity of the scheme and its judicious considerations.

f) The proposed terrace includes ample free space to accommodate solar panels, water tanks, a DG set, and other utilities, including existing and proposed air-conditioning units. To preserve the aesthetics of the façade, it is to ensure that such units do not overhang or remain exposed. Currently, numerous outdoor air-conditioning units are visible on the existing façade. With the proposal to add another floor, the design scheme should incorporate measures to screen all air-conditioning units, ensuring they are concealed and do not detract from the façade's appearance.

g) The proposal to add one more floor above the existing superstructure has been submitted. The structure shall be designed to withstand weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes, etc., and the extra load.

h) The Sustainability features shall be as per point 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, the submission received at the formal stage has discrepancies, lacks clarity, and 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 proposal for redeveloping General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA), Kasturba Nagar, at its meeting on January 28, 2020. Observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for NOC for the Completion (Part-for Commercial & Dispensary Block), 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) and the submission made, including drawings, documentation, photographs, artwork, undertaking by the proponent related to installing solar panels, etc., the proposal for the NOC for Completion (Part-Commercial & Dispensary Block) is acceptable.  

1.  The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for demolition and reconstruction at its meeting on January 2, 2020, and observations were made.
3. The building plans proposal for demolition/reconstruction received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Discrepancy observed in the submission; the Commission noted that the proposal is for demolition and reconstruction and found that it had considered and approved the case for demolition and reconstruction at its meeting on January 2, 2020. It observed that the work on site is still in progress. However, the handwritten proforma the architect has indicated that the proposal is for “revised construction”.

b) Further, while examining the 3D views of the proposal last approved (formal) by the Commission at its meeting on January 2, 2020, it was evident that the architect envisaged extensive modifications, the comparison of which appears missing in the submission. The revisions shall be appropriately marked on the plans, elevations, sections, etc., and resubmitted for the Commission's review.

4. Overall, the submission received at the formal stage has discrepancies, lacks clarity, and 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 NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for an art installation for the Commission's consideration.
2. The proposal for Artwork Installation, received (online) at the formal stage, was scrutinised, and the architect provided a detailed presentation and addressed the Commission's queries. Based on the presentation, discussions, and the submission, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for an art installation at a prime location in a public park of the city and thus it would be important to understand its relevance holistically in context to the surroundings. The submitted proposal, however, does not seem to be comprehensive and self-explanatory, as it lacks details of accessibility, materiality, fixing and other such details, thus making it incomplete. 

b) Since the location of the art installation is proposed to be in the centre of the park without pathways for access, it is suggested to design landscaped pedestrian pathways to guide the users to the installation while also ensuring preservation of the green cover. 

c) Details of materiality are not clear ie. a comprehensive scheme explaining the material palette of all the elements including base, main structure, overhangs, the sphere with the heart etc. to be marked clearly in 3d views to ensure clarity in design scheme.

d) Alongwith, the fixing details of the base to the ground are not clear in the submission, as it has not been explained as to how the installation would be fixed at the ground level, considering the fact that it is sloping in nature. Details of the same to be clearly marked in respective plans, elevations, sections and 3d views. 

e) The triangular ceiling frame appears to be weak as compared to the rest of the installation, and thus it is strongly suggested to increase its depth where it joins the frame to make it appear solid and robust. 

f) In case lighting is proposed in the installation, details of the same including luminaries, size, fixing and it’s maintenance to be provided in the submission, along with night time 3d views to illustrate it’s visual and environmental aesthetics 

g) Details of solar panels including location, sizing, maintenance and fixing to be provided. The Sustainability features shall be as per point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in

3. Overall, the submission received at the formal stage lacks clarity, is incomplete and 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. No record of approval (formal) taken has been found in the Commission’s available record. 
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for the new construction of 12 training huts cum workshop space for the display of handicraft items, an open-air amphitheatre (seating capacity – 400), a training area and guard rooms.

b) The site has an existing building, namely an administrative building, training rooms, and two auditoriums. As the proposal for the new development is in an existing complex, it cannot be seen in isolation and instead needs to be seen holistically. Thus, details of the existing development, including site photographs, approved plans, sections, and elevations, shall be submitted as they would have a bearing on the proposed development and ensure harmony in urban and environmental aesthetics.

c) A complete master plan showing the entire development, including the proposed and existing (including details of the vacant part), be submitted to explain the zoning, functioning, and relationship of buildings within the site.  

d) The Commission observed that the requisite parking is provided on the surface, which it does not appreciate. It is suggested that maximum parking be proposed in the basement to ensure the surface area can be utilised for open, landscaped greens and to reduce issues like urban flooding.

e) A detailed site section covering the entire site needs to be submitted to explain the proposed levels, the relationship of the built to the open areas, and accessibility.

f) Since the proposal has multiple built and open spaces in different materials, a material palette sheet detailing materiality shall be submitted.  

g) 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.

h) The Details of the gate, as shown in sheet titled ‘Detail A,’ are not clear, i.e., its construction details, gutter details of the roof to ensure proper water drainage, etc., to be submitted.

i) Since the amphitheatre is proposed to have a capacity of 400 persons, its details, including plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views (along with night 3D views) showing the surrounding context, should be submitted in the proposal to ensure clarity.

j) 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 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.

k) Details of lighting fixtures, including their fixing, luminaries, location, etc., along with nighttime 3D views, will be submitted.

l) Details of street furniture, including benches (suitable for all age groups), signages, street light poles, garbage bins, bollards, etc., to be provided in the submission.

m) Details of the solid waste management generated at the site, their disposal, etc., are to be provided in the submission.

n) The submission lacks Details of the Swachh Bharat toilet. The provision of the toilet will be as per the guidelines in the Unified Building Byelaws 2016.

o) Complete bifurcation of parking to be provided, i.e., the existing parking provision and proposed parking details along with their provision on the site in respective layout plans. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

p) 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.

q) The Sustainability features shall be as per point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

4. Overall, the proposal could not be reviewed judiciously due to the lack of clarity, incomprehension, and incompleteness of the submission received at the formal stage. The architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations and 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 did not approve the building plans proposal for demolition/reconstruction at its meeting on December 5, 2024; specific observations were given. 
3. The Commission's available records do not contain prior records of approval (Formal/Completion).
4. The building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Although the proposal is at the formal stage, the quality of the 3D views is inadequate. They appear sketchy, and elements such as scale, proportion, and materials are not conveyed appropriately. Additionally, some views are not captured from appropriate angles, and the façade's materiality is unclear. Detailed, annotated 3D views from various suitable angles, including a bird's eye view, specifying the materials to be used on the façade, must be provided for the Commission's review.

b) The kitchen and toilets were planned without accommodating provisions for plumbing shafts, which could compromise the façade's aesthetics. Plumbing shafts should be incorporated to house these services, ensuring the aesthetics remain intact.

c) The drawings overlook details on rainwater drainage from balconies and roofs. The exposed pipes could compromise the façade's aesthetics. The drainage locations and mechanisms should be specified in the respective floor plans.

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

e) The Sustainability features shall be as per point 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 points nos. 10, 11, and 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 received at the formal stage lacks clarity and 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 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, NOC for completion (part-Tower G and H) on October 24, 2024.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion (Part–Towers J, K and L) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission, including drawings, documentation, photographs, artwork, etc., the proposal for the NOC for Completion (Part-Towers J, K and L) is acceptable.