Action Taken Report with respect to the minutes of the 1796th meeting held on 09.01.2025.

1. Action Taken Report regarding Minutes of 1796th meeting held on 09.01.2025 were discussed.

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 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 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 North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for Hansraj College at its meeting held on July 29, 2009; specific observations were made.
3. The Commission did not accept the concept of the building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting on October 19, 2023, but accepted it at its meeting on December 28, 2023; specific observations were made.
4. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations [{(addition of 3rd floors over the existing college main building (G+2 Floors), Science Block (G+2 Floors), Zoology and botany dept. building (G+2 Floors), Library Block (G+2 Floors)}, {addition of 2nd and 3rd Floors over the existing Canteen building (G+1 Floors), addition of Girls’ hostel (B+G+5 Floors), demolition and reconstruction of Boys’ Hostel(B+G+5)}]  received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually suitable letter no. OL-18122327029 dated 02.01.2024. Based on the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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-18122327029 dated 02.01.2024, which is not appreciated.

b) Multiple discrepancies were observed in the submission, so the Commission could not judiciously review it. The submission, being at the formal stage, needs details of each block, including detailed drawings, 3D views, elevations, and sections, to explain the scheme and design clearly.

c) The area chart mentions no additional floors proposed in the principals’ residence, whereas 3d shows a proposed first floor.

d) The Commission noted that the proposed 3D views show connections at various levels between girls’ and boys’ hostels through connecting bridges, whereas the detailed drawings, i.e., plans, elevations, and sections do not reflect such details; thus, a discrepancy is noted.

e) All side 3D views of the hostel block (both boys and girls) and terrace details are missing. Also, the 3d views, along with the detailed drawings, are blurred and sketchy, thus not providing clarity in the submission. Additionally, the 3d views are to be shown in context with the existing development in the complex.

f) Plumbing pipes are proposed to be exposed on the façade, which would mar the aesthetics; they need to be concealed behind shafts and screened appropriately.

g) The detailed drawings and 3D views do not show the air conditioning mechanism; this information needs to be provided in detail at the formal stage.

h) The Ramp to the basement, as shown in the building plans, is not reflected in the 3D views; it needs to be appropriately incorporated for the Commission's review.  

i) All requisite parking provisions shall follow applicable norms/regulations/guidelines. Also, parking is lacking. To understand the movement in the site appropriately, a combined mobility plan incorporating both pedestrian and vehicular movement shall be submitted.

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

k) A Work of public art of suitable scale, size, and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level that is also visible from outside, should 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.

l) 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.

m) All service equipment, plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, water tanks, DG sets, DG exhaust 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.

5. Overall, the proposal could not be reviewed judiciously as it is incomplete, incomprehensible and has discrepancies 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 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 meetings on August 29, 2024, and January 02, 2025, respectively, 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 08.01.2025. 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 and noted that the proposed terrace plan shows the provision of columns. It is assumed that this is a mistake and that these columns will not continue at the terrace level for further extension; the respective local body will ensure the same.

c) 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.

d) 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.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the proposal for enclosing the Southern Corridor in front of Court no. 1 to 5 with structural glazing at the Supreme Court of India at its meeting held on May 30, 2024, observations were made. The Commission did not approve the layout and Building plan proposal in respect of the Expansion of the Supreme Court Building for creating Additional courtrooms, including a Constitutional Court, Chambers for the Judges and facilities for Lawyers & Litigants at the Supreme Court of India at its meeting held on December 12, 2024; specific observations were given.
3. The layout and building plan proposal for the Expansion of the Supreme Court of India 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-205122462024 dated 17.12.2024 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) The proposal is for demolition (including the museum, annexe, main circular building, and main east-west) and phased reconstruction of parts of the complex. The proposed building includes two basements (double stack parking) and G+5 floors.

b) Dome: The dome's location in the proposed complex seems unsuitable as it would not be visible from the road level due to its low height and the deep distance from the edge. It is suggested to instead shift the dome towards the outer edge (towards the curve) so that it sits centrally atop the Constitutional court and does not cut across it and the corridor. Additionally, two small dome/chattri elements can be added to the lower terrace to complement the big dome. Also, it is suggested that the screening height be decreased or removed altogether to ensure the screen does not block the view of the dome from eye level.  

c) Junction of existing and proposed building: Since the building is an expansion in an existing built complex, the detail where the two blocks connect is very important, as that would define the transition and integrate the buildings through various architectural features and design. The Commission noted that the junction where the existing and proposed buildings meet has not been given due thought; resultantly, it appears to be an appendage rather than integrated and not in harmony with the existing block. Thus, the Commission suggests segregating the blocks by introducing a recessed corridor or vestibule and treating the edges appropriately to ensure the existing context is respected and acknowledged.  

d) Columns in the façade: The twin columns in the façade appearing at an interval seem unproportionate, i.e. they appear very tall and slender, thus giving the impression of pipes rather than columns. However, the columns in the existing building are proportionate due to their tapering character and prominent capital. It is suggested to draw the proportions from the existing column, wherein the dimensions for the same to be provided ensuring their design and proportions. Also, the existing columns seem to have a parapet running at the top and bottom, giving them a finished look. Similar details can be explored for the proposed buildings to ensure the overall façade gives a holistic and well-detailed appearance.

e) Columns in the porch:  The proportions of columns in the porch including base steps need to be improved.

f) All requisite parking provisions shall be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

g) A Work of public art of suitable scale, size, and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level that is also visible from outside, should 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) 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 service equipment, plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, water tanks, DG sets, DG exhaust 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

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 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 submission including documentation, drawings and photographs, the proposal for NOC for completion is accepted.
    

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 submission including documentation, drawings and photographs, the proposal for NOC for completion is accepted.