Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1793rd and 1794th (Extraordinary) meetings held on 26.12.2024 and 30.12.2024 respectively.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1793rd and 1794th (Extraordinary) meetings held on 26.12.2024 and 30.12.2024 were discussed.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the Redevelopment of the Residential Colony for AIIMS at Ayurvigyan Nagar at its meeting held on February 17, 2022; specific observations were made.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion in respect of the Local Shopping Complex received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised, and based on the drawings, documentation, and photographs submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The local shopping centre (LSC) forms part of a larger campus, and only the LSC building has been received for NOC for completion (Part).

b) The submitted site photographs show a tall exhaust structure that seems to overpower the primary structure due to its height. The exhaust structure shall be better screened to ensure the aesthetics are balanced and not overpowered.

c) The colour palette shown in the approved drawings by DUAC does not match the as-built structure. The approved drawings show white as the colour of the building and the pergola, whereas the site photographs show the structure in green with reddish pergolas, thus a mismatch. It shall be ensured that the final finishes and colour scheme follow the same as approved by DUAC to ensure the NOC is obtained for approval.

d) The sprinklers in the open corridor on the ground floors are exposed and thus mar the aesthetics. Appropriate mechanisms, such as a false ceiling or other suitable mechanisms, shall conceal the sprinklers.

e) 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.

f) 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. 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 South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting on January 08, 2021, but did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting on October 10, 2024, where specific observations were made.
3. The revised building plans proposal (for the addition of first floor only) 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-06122155001, F. No. 55(01)/2021-DUAC dated 16.10.2024.  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) The parapet of the proposed structures should have coping sloping inwards to ensure that rainwater does not leave trail marks on the vertical surfaces. Also, all proposed finishes and materials should be incorporated as approved by DUAC to ensure NOC for Completion.

c) Since a new structure is added to an existing construction, the proposed structure shall be resistant to natural calamities like earthquakes, strong wind conditions, etc., to ensure the safety of the users.

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

e) 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.

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.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans at its meeting held on August 6, 2008, and accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting on November 22, 2017.
3. The Commission took note of the e-mail sent by the proposal's architect vide their email dated 08.01.2025 indicating that:

“…….. With reference to the subject cited above ,it is to mention that we have applied for the completion / occupancy  application wide  MCD  Request ID – 10107820. Due  to MCD online application system, this application has been forwarded to DUAC through  default  process. We did not intend to seek approval  from DUAC again  for  Hostel “D”

 As the Completion plans of Hostel ‘D’ has already been approved by DUAC and NOC  given on dated 7^th Dec , 2017,hence it is requested to you that  not to consider this application in the next agenda meeting.  

Copy of  NOC letter is attached for ready reference…..”

4. In view of the above, it is returned without consideration of the Commission.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans at its February 09, 2019 meeting.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised. Based on the submitted documentation, including drawings and photographs, the proposal for NOC for completion is accepted.

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, November 14, 2024, December 05, 2024, and December 19, 2024, respectively; observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (extension of bedrooms, dining room, the addition of store, addition and extension of balconies in blocks A, B, D and E,  and extension of bedrooms, the addition of store, addition and extension of balconies, community facility under stilt in block – C and will be used as society office only.) 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 30.12.2024. Based on the replies submitted and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission has noted with concern that it is reviewing the same submission at the formal stage for the sixth time, with multiple observations provided during the previous five reviews still not satisfactorily addressed. The earlier comments outlined in DUAC letter no: OL-22102422102, F. No. 22(102)/2024-DUAC dated 30.12.2024 remain unresolved. This lack of compliance is unacceptable and raises questions about the capacity and competence of the project architect.

b) The Commission intended to address this issue directly with the relevant authority of the CGHS society. However, the necessary credentials were missing in the submission. The credentials of the concerned representative from the society are requested to be included in the next submission.

c) 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 a community facility under stilt in block C that will be used as society office only, and storage on all floors of all blocks—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 about the proposed modifications only.

d) As per the replies submitted in response to the Commission’s observations vide letter no.  OL-22102422102, F. No. 22(102)/2024-DUAC dated 30.12.2024, the architect mentions:

“Community hall has been removed from green area. The community facility has been provided under stilt in block – C and will be used as society office only.”

The Commission noted that the submitted proposal still shows space for a community hall marked in the green area, thus creating inconsistency in the submission at the formal stage.

e) The submitted drawings also show inconsistencies. For example, the layout plan mentions S+7 floors in Block C, whereas the individual blocks mention S+10 floors; the same will be corrected in the revised submission.

f) 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.

g) 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.

5. Overall, the submission is ambiguous, lacks clarity, 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, 27.11.2024 12.12.2024 and 30.12.2024 respectively, and furnish pointwise incorporation and reply.

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 on August 18, 1982, and specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not approve the Layout and building plans proposal for the Academic and Hostel blocks at IIMC at its meeting on December 05, 2024; observations were made. 
4. The layout and building plan proposal for the Academic and Hostel Block received (online) at the formal stage for Academic and Hostel Block 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-27112462023 dated 12.12.2024. Based on the documentation, including drawings and photographs, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) It has been observed that the submission has been re-submitted without satisfactorily addressing previous observations outlined in DUAC letter no: OL-27112462023 dated 12.12.2024.

b) Reply no. 1 for previous observations of the Commission vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-27112462023 dated 12.12.2024 have not complied with appropriately i.e.: 

“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”.

The Commission has noted that the 3D views show flat terrain, especially on the road around the campus, giving an impression of a flat site, which contradicts the details of a rocky site, as informed by the architect. The 3D views, drawings, site sections, etc., shall clearly show the rocky terrain while explaining the built and open relationship. 

c) The pergola's shape and profile have not been well integrated into the design. To minimise the wastage, it should be revised, sensitive to the opening space between the two blocks. 

d) The 3D views do not provide material details; thus, the submission is not self-explanatory. The revised submission shall include updated 3D views mentioning the materiality and colour palette. 

e) The detail of the parapet appears to be incomplete, i.e. the edge seems to be abruptly ending without the parapet continuing to the other side of the roof; thus, an incomplete detail is submitted. Details of the parapet, including its height, coping detail, materiality, drainage mechanism, etc., are to be provided along with the termination detail in respective drawings and 3d views. 

f) The reason for the high parapet wall is not understood. Alternatively, the height of the parapet wall may be reduced, and the services may be located away from it to ensure appropriate screening. 

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.

5. Overall, the submission is incomplete, lacks clarity, and contains inconsistencies; previous observations remain non-compliant. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and those communicated through DUAC observation letter no: OL-27112462023 dated 12.12.2024 and furnish pointwise incorporation and reply.
    

Building plans proposal in respect of Centre for Advanced Studies, Hindu College, North Campus, Delhi University. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission previously approved the layout plan of Hindu College at Delhi University at its meeting on September 30, 2009.
3. The building plans proposal for Advanced Studies at Hindu College received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) During its meeting on October 17, 2024, the Commission issued specific guidelines through memorandum no. 1(2)/82-DUAC dated October 29, 2024, for the conceptual proposal under review. It was noted that the authorisation letter from the owner appointing the architect and the architect's COA certificate was missing from the checklist. As the proposal is at the conceptual stage, it is imperative to provide accurate and complete documentation, adhering to the requirements specified in the checklist for conceptual proposals (available on the OPAAS login page under "Steps to Submit Proposals for Conceptual Proposals"). This will ensure that the Commission appropriately considers the proposal.

4. The Commission could not consider the proposal due to insufficient information provided at the conceptual stage (as outlined in the checklist available on the DUAC website). The architect is therefore advised to furnish complete and accurate information along with a detailed point-wise reply addressing to the above observations to facilitate a judicious review of the proposal.

Layout and building plans proposal in respect of Creation of New Infrastructure at Surajmal Vihar Campus for Delhi University. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plans proposal for the Creation of New Infrastructure received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) During its meeting on October 17, 2024, the Commission issued specific guidelines through memorandum no. 1(2)/82-DUAC dated October 29, 2024, for the conceptual proposal under review. It was noted that the authorisation letter from the owner appointing the architect and the architect's COA certificate was missing from the checklist. As the proposal is at the conceptual stage, it is imperative to provide accurate and complete documentation, adhering to the requirements specified in the checklist for conceptual proposals (available on the OPAAS login page under "Steps to Submit Proposals for Conceptual Proposals"). This will ensure that the Commission appropriately considers the proposal.

3. The Commission could not consider the proposal due to insufficient information provided at the conceptual stage (as outlined in the checklist available on the DUAC website). The architect is, therefore, advised to furnish complete and accurate information along with a detailed point-wise reply to the above observations to facilitate a judicious review of the proposal.

Completion plans proposal regarding Group Housing at Pocket-4, Sector A1 to A4, Narela.

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. Based on the submitted replies and documentation, including drawings and photographs, the proposal for NOC for completion is accepted.
    

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