Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1792nd meeting held on 19.12.2024.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1792nd meeting held on 19.12.2024 were discussed.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve (Formal) the building plans proposal for Commercial buildings at its meeting on July 31, 2020, and did not approve (Formal) the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting on August 29, 2024, where specific observations were made.
3. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (alterations of part basement, stilt and proposed first to third floor) 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 letter no: OL-25072023034, F.No. 23(34)/2020-DUAC dated 04.09.2024. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, 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) 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-25072023034, F.No. 23(34)/2020-DUAC dated 04.09.2024 which is not appreciated.

c) The submitted photographs are unclear as they do not show the complete plot details, i.e., the inside of the plots, terrace, and upper floor details. Also, from the site photographs it seems that the work on site has already commenced. Uncut and updated site photographs showing the current status shall be submitted, depicting details inside the plot and pictures of the upper level (including the terrace floor).

d) The surrounding structures and the existing building seem to be in dilapidating condition. Since a structure is added to an existing construction in case of addition/alteration, it shall be ensured that the proposed structure is resistant to natural calamities like earthquakes, strong wind conditions, etc., to ensure the safety of the users. 

e) The submitted drawings do not clearly indicate which parts of the proposal would be demolished/retained and proposed. To provide clarity in the submission, separate plans should be submitted for each process, i.e., demolition, retained, and proposed.

f) Also, from the submitted 3D views, the proposal appears to be for complete demolition/reconstruction and not addition/alteration; clarity on the above shall be given and marked appropriately in the modified submission for the review of the Commission.  

g) Inconsistency is seen in the submission, i.e. plans do not match the sections (section CC’ does not match the plan) and thus gives incorrect proposal details. The same shall be co-related and resubmitted to eliminate discrepancies in the submission. Complete sections (plot edge to edge, both at the ‘X’ and ‘Y’ axis) shall be provided to give details of excavated and unexcavated portions in the site with proper annotations.

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

i) All water tanks, plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, etc., should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of points 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 SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting on January 23, 2015, and approved revisions at its meetings on May 24, 2017; specific observations were made.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised, and based on the drawings, documentation, and photographs submitted, the following observations were given:

a) The proposal appears to be for part completion of the Expansion of Engineering Block-C and Mini Academic Complex, Block-C. Still, the same has not been marked appropriately on the respective drawings for clarity and review by the Commission.

b) The title of the submitted drawings is incorrect. The title mentions proposed building plans for the proposed expansion, whereas the submission is for Completion, thus creating inconsistencies; the same needs to be corrected and resubmitted.

c) A discrepancy was observed in the submission received at the completion stage. The submitted site plan shows one approved portion but not constructed, i.e., not built as of the date. The Commission noted that the drawings submitted for completion still show the not-constructed building part in all drawings, thus creating inconsistencies. The submission shall only show the parts that require completion to ensure clarity and comprehensiveness.

d) The submission is incomplete. It lacks photographs of the basement (as built). 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.

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.

4. Overall, the proposal could not be reviewed judiciously due to the lack of incompleteness and inconsistencies in the submission received at the completion stage. The architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations and submit a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission clearly and point-by-point.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans for additions and alterations its meeting held on June 20, 2024, where specific observations were made.
3. The revised building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-13062427129, F.No. 23(129)/2024-DUAC dated 27.06.2024.  Based on the revised submission made, 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 has been observed that the same submission appears to have been re-submitted without incorporating substantial changes, and the previous observations outlined in DUAC letter no: OL-13062427129, F.No. 23(129)/2024-DUAC dated 27.06.2024 remain unaddressed, which is not appreciated.

c) The submitted site photographs are outdated, dated to 2023, and appear cropped. Additionally, construction has already commenced at the site without obtaining DUAC's approval. Updated and unedited site photographs showing detailed views from various angles from within the plot and upper levels (including the terrace floor) are required to facilitate a comprehensive review by the Commission.

d) Since a structure is added to an existing construction in case of addition/alteration, the structure shall be designed to withstand weather effects and impacts from calamities like earthquakes, etc., as is an additional structure added to the existing superstructure. It shall be ensured that it is braced firmly to the building and does not impact the safety of the superstructure.

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

f) All water tanks, rainwater pipes, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, etc., should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of points 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 previous observations vide DUAC letter no: OL-13062427129, F.No. 23(129)/2024-DUAC dated 27.06.2024 and submit a detailed response, incorporating each point the Commission raised clearly and point-by-point.

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 conceptual building plan proposal at its meetings held on November 28, 2024, and December 12, 2024; specific observations were given.
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. 

b) 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.

c) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, drying clothes on the balcony, 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 proposal for Clock Tower received online at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect at CISCO Webex meetings, who gave a detailed presentation and provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held online, the presentation made, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) A proposal has been received for installing a 22.0m high clock tower at the intersection of Mandir Marg and Talkatora Road. 

b) The submitted proposal lacks clarity and is not self-explanatory. Details, including sections through the road, i.e., a longitudinal section showing the relation of the proposed Clock tower with the ridge, boundary wall, footpath, and road, should be shown. Also, another section showing the heights of the surrounding built structures and other important landmarks (if any) should be shown to explain the surrounding context. 

c) The proposed Location of the Clock tower is unsuitable.  Generally, structures such as clock and bell towers are located at crowded areas such as markets, plazas, train stations, or other busy places where high pedestrian movement and access are observed. 

d) The construction detail, along with the proposed materiality requires quality control and workmanship that may be challenging to achieve and thus might compromise the final output of the structure. Tt is suggested that design options in steel/aluminium/metal and glass and integrated staircase be explored, where materials with longevity and low maintenance but better finishes are adopted. Alternate design options shall be submitted incorporating the suggestions mentioned above. Detailed plans, elevations, sections, and blow-up details with correct dimensions are to be submitted to ensure a comprehensive submission. 

e) Details of the clock’s manufacturer and other specifications for its making shall be submitted with options if available. 

3. 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 DDA forwarded the proposal (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal during its meeting on August 13, 1991, and subsequently accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting on December 18, 2002.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for addition/alteration at its meeting on December 12, 2024; specific observations were made.
4. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (Extension of dining room, proposed one bedroom with toilet and extension/addition of balconies in each unit) 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) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations.

c) Since a structure is added to an existing construction in case of addition/alteration, the structure shall be designed to withstand weather effects and impacts from calamities like earthquakes, etc., as is an additional structure added to the existing superstructure. It shall be ensured that it is braced firmly to the building and does not impact the safety of the superstructure.

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

e) To ensure NOC for Completion (at later stages), all water tanks, plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of points 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 (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans for Category II & EWS Housing at Pocket-14, plot no. A-4/5, Sector-A1 to A4, Narela, at its meeting on February 15, 2017.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised. The proposal for NOC for Completion was accepted based on the drawings, documentation, and photographs submitted.
    

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

1. The DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans at its December 28, 2016 meeting.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised. The proposal for NOC for Completion was accepted based on the drawings, documentation, and photographs submitted.

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

1. The DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans at its December 28, 2016 meeting.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised. The proposal for NOC for Completion was accepted based on the drawings, documentation, and photographs submitted.
    

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

1. The DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meetings held on January 15, 2014, January 29, 2014, and February 05, 2014, respectively. The revised layout and building plans proposal was approved in the meetings held on January 09, 2018, and September 04, 2019; specific observations were given. The Commission approved the revised building plans proposal (revisions in EWS) at its meeting on December 16, 2021; specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion (Part: EWS Tower A3, D2, D3, & F1) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised. Based on the drawings, documentation, and photographs submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Cropped site photographs have been submitted, which do not clarify the site's current updates. Uncut, updated, and annotated site photographs showing the current site status shall be submitted, depicting details inside the plot and pictures of the upper level (including the terrace floor). The photo's location shall be marked on a key plan to explain the photograph's location.

b) Photographs of the basement (showing parking provisions), terrace, and parking on the surface are missing, making the submission incomplete.

c) Also, from the submitted site photographs, it is visible that glass has not been installed in the openings, thus making the building unsafe for use.

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, as well as 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.

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.

4. Overall, the proposal could not be reviewed judiciously due to the lack of incompleteness and inconsistencies in the submission received at the completion stage. The architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations and submit a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission clearly and point-by-point.

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

1. The NDMC 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 proposal for demolition and reconstruction received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect at CISCO Webex meetings, who clarified the Commission's queries. Based on the discussion held online 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.

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

c) All water tanks, plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner 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.

Revised building plans proposal of redevelopment of Campus for National School of Drama at Mandi House. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. Previously, the Commission did not approve (formal) the proposal during its meetings on July 24, 2020, and October 22, 2020, providing specific observations. The concept was later accepted at its meetings on July 08, 2021, and September 23, 2021, with specific observations.

3. The Commission did not accept the revised design scheme proposal at its meeting held on October 17, 2024, and December 12, 2024; observations were made.

4. The ‘Bhawalpur House and Campus' is a listed Grade-II heritage building at Serial No. 28 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.

5. The building plans proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on CISCO Webex meetings, who made a detailed presentation and provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held online, the presentation made, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The submitted 3d views show white vertical bands, which seems to overpower other elements. Since it has no functional purpose and is only an aesthetic element, removing it from the façade is suggested. Similarly, the dancing mudras in the white circle do not match the theme of the complex, as it is an institution for drama and theatre—alternate design options to be submitted wherein the suggestions mentioned above are incorporated while ensuring urban and environmental aesthetics.

b) An appropriate number of skin sections are to be provided to explain the construction details and materiality of various architectural elements provided in the façade.

c) A before/after of the compliances, along with 3D views, should be submitted to explain the incorporated changes and make the submission self-explanatory.

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.

6. Overall, the proposal could not be reviewed judiciously due to the lack of clarity and incompleteness in the submission received at the Conceptual stage. The architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations along with earlier observations of the Commission vide letter no. OL-07112427074 dated 17.12.2024 and submit a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission in a clear and point-by-point manner.

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

Building plans proposal regarding Expansion of OPD and Additional Blocks at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital at Rajinder Nagar.  (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the revised layout plan proposal for Sir Gangaram Hospital at its meeting held on March 23, 2011.
3. The layout building plans proposal (for - Proposed OPD Block-3 (two basement + ground + 10 floor), Proposed fire escape bridge on 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th floor between Super Special Block and MMLCP), Proposed fifth floor on existing Special Ward, Proposed Electrical Sub Station, extended area of Block-1 from ground to 10th floor, Proposed Biomedical Waste) received (online) at the conceptual stage were scrutinised. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

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

b) 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.

c) 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.

d) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, DG sets, 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
 

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

Building plans proposal in respect of Hospital at OCF Pocket, Block -E, Sector -18 Rohini. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) 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 plans proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is at the conceptual stage. However, the architect has provided an authority letter from the proponent, which has the owner's credentials but provided identical credentials (including email ID and mobile number) for both the owner and architect in the submitted proforma details, which need to be corrected.

b) The submitted drawings do not include plumbing and rainwater pipe shafts on various floors. Therefore, shafts shall be provided in all areas, including toilets, kitchens, balconies, etc., along with termination details in the respective floor plans.

4. Overall, 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.

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