Action Taken Report for the minutes of the 1795th meeting held on 02.01.2025.

1. Action Taken Report for the minutes of the 1795th meeting held on 02.01.2025 were discussed.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting on March 15, 2022, and specific observations were made. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting on June 05, 2024; observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion 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-04062449019, F. No. 49(19)/2024-DUAC dated 07.06.2024, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online on Cisco WebEx meetings, who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the drawings, documentation, photographs submitted, and the discussion held online, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for NOC for Completion (Part- for additions/alterations approved at its meeting on March 15, 2022), it did not consider or cover the existing construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for NOC for Completion (Part) only.

b) The submitted drawings do not clearly specify which parts of the proposal require NOC for Completion. The areas under NOC for Completion (Part) should be clearly delineated and appropriately marked on the relevant drawings to ensure clarity and facilitate the Commission's review.

c) The Commission observed that while approving (formally) the case for additions/alterations, certain observation were given which are required to be completed at site before submitting the case for NOC for Completion:

“………c)Work of art shall ensure to be in terms of the public art provisions as stipulated under point no. 14 of the CP AA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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)All water tanks, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air­conditioner units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.......”

The submission does not include a completed work of public art; only a reference picture was provided. Since the work is at the completion stage, the proposal needs to provide a completed work of public art. Similarly, from the site photographs provided, it was evident that solar panels have not been installed on the terrace. They need to be installed, and current pictures substantiating their installation shall be provided.

d) The utilities installed on the terrace, including dish antennas, are not appropriately screened and remain visible. Given the site's prominent location along Highway NH44, these elements are easily noticeable from NH44. It must be ensured that all utilities and services on the terrace are screened correctly as per points 10, 11, and 12 of the CPAA (Criteria for Project Assessment and Approval), as outlined on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. Overall, the submission is incomplete, lacks clarity and is not comprehensive. 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 South-DMC 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 building plans proposal (Basement+S+G+4 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on 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.

1. The South-DMC 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 building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The structural safety of the structure is to be ensured by the concerned local body.

b) The rainwater pipes are to be screened appropriately to ensure they do not mar the aesthetics of the façade. Also, it is suggested that PVC pipes be used for rainwater drainage to ensure they do not corrode and are long-lasting.

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, 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.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting on March 24, 1979, and accepted the NOC for completion at its meeting on July 05, 1991; specific observations were made.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on November 07, 2024; specific observations were made.
4. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (addition of second floor in Block-C and addition of new lift) 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-29102424013 dated 11.11.2024, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the 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 submission pertains to the addition of a second floor in Block C and the provision of a lift. However, the submitted plans, 3D views, and other drawings indicate that the façade has been completely altered from its existing state, highlighting a significant inconsistency in the submission.

c) The 3D views lack details regarding materiality. To effectively convey the façade's materiality, the submission must include detailed 3D views accompanied by a material palette sheet that outlines the proposed materials, their specifications, colour scheme, and other relevant details.

d) Bird' s-eye 3D views of the buildings and details of the services installed on the terrace are to be submitted.

e) The submitted drawings show toilets with exposed plumbing pipes hanging out in the building without shafts. All plumbing/waste/rainwater pipes shall be appropriately screened in shafts to ensure they do not mar the aesthetics.  

f) 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.

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

h) 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.

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 received at the formal stage is inconsistent, lacks clarity, is incomprehensible, and incomplete; thus, the Commission could not appreciate it judiciously. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and furnish pointwise incorporation and reply.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the proposal for the Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan of President Estate at its meeting held on December 11, 2013; specific observations were made.
3. The ‘Building within President Estate’ is a listed Grade-I heritage building at Serial No. 5 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.
4. The building plan proposal with respect to the Construction of 54 nos. Type-II Quarters in lieu of demolition of 125 nos. Type I quarters at Schedule A, President Estate received (online) at the formal stage were scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for 54 nos. residential quarters, with each block being G+1 in height.

b) The arch at the ground floor is seen to have a beamlike structure in its background, which takes away the focus from the arch shape. Instead, it is advised to have an appropriate structural solution for beam so that the shape of the arch is visible and complete.

c) The 3D view shows exhaust in the front façade, marring the aesthetics. The exhaust shall be ensured to open into a shaft to conceal and screen the plumbing pipes—all kitchen and toilet pipes are to be ensured to be concealed behind shafts along with their termination details.

d) The facade in the 3D views shows many level differences, especially around the windows next to the shaft. Surfaces are created with various levels, which attract dust and bird droppings, thus spoiling the façade. These multiple surfaces need to be reduced by flushing the façade to avoid the above issues and ensure the façade remains low-maintenance and aesthetic.

e) The design of the jaali for the shaft and the balcony must be the same.

f) To ensure uniform materiality, it is suggested that the cross element in the square cutout in the parapet be replaced with the jaali used in the shaft.

g) The sill and lintel level of the window are to be finished in stone.

h) The internal sizes of the bedroom are to be arranged to accommodate a study table.

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 service equipment, water tanks, plumbing pipes, 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 DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the layout and building plans at its meeting on January 30, 1997. However, the Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting on September 19, 2024, and observations were given.
3. 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-11092448039, F.No. 48(39)/2024-DUAC dated 24.09.2024.  Based on the drawings, documentation, and photographs submitted, the NOC for Completion proposal is accepted.

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, and December 05, 2024; respectively; 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-27112424017 dated 12.12.2024. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

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

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

c) 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.

d) 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.

e) 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 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 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 Commission did not approve the revised layout and building plans for Social Infrastructure at its meeting held on December 05, 2024; specific observations were made.
4. The revised layout and building plan proposal for Social Infrastructure received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for the provision of social infrastructure, including a central library (B+G+5 floors), a sports complex (G+3 floors), a school of excellence (G+3 floors), and senior citizen recreational and creche (G+1 floors).

b) Most drawings lack a North Point; to better understand orientation, the drawings shall have North points.

c) The submission lacks details of the boundary wall and entry gate. The design of the gate and boundary wall affects the overall aesthetics of the complex. The same needs to be detailed for gate/grill detail/material applications coordinated with plans/elevations/sections/3D views, etc.

A. Central Library:

i) A large part of the façade is proposed to be finished in glass, which is not very conducive to the city's climate. It is strongly suggested that other alternative materials for the façade be explored, which are low-maintenance. Also, the scheme for air-conditioning such large spaces is not explained in detail to explain its functioning and effectiveness.

ii) The details of the steps and ramp shown in the drawings and 3D views do not appear to be the same. The details shall be coordinated and updated to provide correct information.

iii) The library building lacks a porch, which exposes the user directly to the outside. A porch needs to be appropriately designed to act as a shading mechanism to protect against harsh weather conditions, and the same needs to be provided and reflected in the respective drawings.

iv) Details of Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) toilets are missing in the submission, i.e. detailed drawings including plan, elevation, and sections, along with 3d views, screening of services, etc., to be submitted to ensure a complete formal proposal.

v) The glass façade's structural arrangement is unclear as no details are provided. Detailed skin sections showing the fixing of glass should be provided to explain the construction detail clearly.

vi) From the 3D views, it has been observed that public spaces are highly paved without green spaces. Paved surfaces should be minimised to prevent flooding and improve groundwater recharge.

B. Sports Complex:

i) The layout plans show the provision of double-stack parking, but the details are not reflected in the 3D views, thus not depicting the complete visual details. The discrepancy needs to be corrected by updating the 3D views.

ii) The submission regarding details of Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) toilets is incomplete; a detailed plan, elevation, and section are missing; these need to be provided in the updated submission.

iii) Updated, coordinated, and complete drawings must be submitted to ensure the submission is complete at the formal stage.

C. School of Excellence:

i) The site plan shows double-stack parking at the building complex's front edge, which is unacceptable. It shall be relocated elsewhere not to mar the urban and environmental aesthetics.

ii) The submission regarding details of Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) toilets is incomplete; a detailed plan, elevation, and section are missing; these need to be provided in the updated submission.

iii) If air conditioning is part of the design, the submission must include a detailed explanation of its functioning and the screening mechanism for outdoor air-conditioning units.

iv) Details of services on the terrace are to be reflected in the 3d views.

D. Senior citizen recreational and Creche:

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

ii) 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.

iii) 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 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 and reply.

Layout and building plans in respect of Redevelopment of GPRA Colony Phase-II, Kasturba Nagar. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission previously approved the Redevelopment of General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA), Kasturba Nagar, at its meeting on January 28, 2020.
3. The layout and building plans proposal for the Redevelopment of GPRA Colony Phase-II, Kasturba Nagar, received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, the following observation is 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 on the DUAC website). The architect is, therefore, advised to furnish complete and accurate details addressing the above observations to facilitate a judicious review of the proposal.

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 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. However, the Commission did not accept the building plans proposal for the Centre for Advanced Studies, Hindu College, at its meeting held on January 09, 2025; specific observations were made.
3. The building plans proposal for the Centre 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 for the conceptual proposal under review through memorandum no. 1(2)/82-DUAC dated October 29, 2024. It was noted that the architect's COA certificate was missing as per the checklist, which the architect shared via his email dated 15.01.2025. As the proposal is at the conceptual stage, providing accurate and complete documentation along with the online submission is imperative.

b) The submitted drawings exhibit inconsistencies. For instance, the drawings titled "layout plan" and "site plan" indicate the proposed conference centre as comprising (3 basements + S + 8 floors) with a total height of 27.0 m. In contrast, the proposal is for the Centre for Advanced Studies (basement + S + 8 floors) with a total height of 36.60 m. The building profile in the layout does not align with the proposed building plans, resulting in inconsistencies in the submission. These discrepancies should be addressed and corrected in the revised submission.

4. Overall, the submission is sketchy and inconsistent; the Commission returned it to the architect without consideration.

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

1. The 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 Commission did not approve the revised scheme for the Faculty of Technology at its meeting on November 21, 2024; specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-14112423147, F.no. 23(147)/2024-DUAC dated 27.11.2024. 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) are 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) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in

d) 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.

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

1. The South-DMC 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 building plans 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 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.

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

1. The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meetings held on November 28, 2024, and December 19, 2024; specific observations were made.
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 letter no: OL- 18122455020 dated 30.12.2024. 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, etc.

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, 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.

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

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on October 20, 2022, and specific observations were given.
3. The ‘Residence at Court Road, Rajpur Road’ is a listed Grade-III heritage building at Serial No. 8 in the Gazette notification no. F. No. 7 (367)/227/2002/UD/841 dated February 25, 2010, issued by the Department of Urban Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
4. The revised layout and building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online on Cisco Webex meetings, who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the drawings, documentation, photographs submitted, and the discussion held online, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission had previously approved the proposal in its meeting on October 20, 2022. The revised submission, however, has been submitted with modifications that are not self-explanatory and not clearly identifiable, i.e., it is unclear as to the changes/deviations from the earlier approved proposal by DUAC. A revised submission showing before and after must be submitted to clarify the submission.

b) The submitted 3D views are insufficient; only one side view of the proposed heritage structure has been provided. Annotated 3D views, including birds-eye perspectives and details of the façade materiality, should be superimposed with the existing context, including road networks and surrounding structures, to better understand the proposal.

c) The proposal shows the provision of the basement floor, but it is not clear from the section as the ground level is marked the same as the road level. Also, the 3d views show an elevated plinth, but its height is not apparent from the drawings and the 3d views, the same needs to ensure the provision of light and ventilation as per Unified Building bye-laws 2016.

d) 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.

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

5. 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.

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