Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1797th meeting held on 16.01.2025.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1797th meeting held on 16.01.2025 were discussed.

1. The North-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) The Commission observed that the submission received at the formal stage is incomplete. Documents such as 3D views depicting the proposed design from all sides, a bird’s eye view showing the terrace and its details, and the project report are missing. Since this is a formal submission, it must include annotated 3D views showing the materiality and façade treatment. A comprehensive project report detailing the design scheme, area calculations, and other requisite information must be provided to ensure a clear understanding of the project.

b) Additionally, only one site photograph has been provided. Complete, uncut pictures from all sides must be submitted to clearly show the existing site conditions, context, and surroundings.

c) 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.

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.

4. Overall, due to incomplete documentation and an incomplete submission at the formal stage, the proposal is being returned to the concerned local body, i.e., MCD, without consideration by the Commission. The architect is advised to address all the above observations and provide a pointwise incorporation and response.

1. The North-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 at 528, Kucha Pati Ram’ is a listed Grade-III heritage building at Serial No. 369 in the Gazette notification no. F. No. 13(43)MB/UD/2014/1602 dated July 29, 2016 issued by the Department of Urban Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
4. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The Commission observed that the submission received at the formal stage is incomplete. Documents such as 3D views depicting the proposed design from all sides, a bird’s eye view showing the terrace and its details, and the project report are missing. Since this is a formal submission, it must include annotated 3D views showing the materiality and façade treatment. A comprehensive project report detailing the design scheme, area calculations, and other requisite information must be provided to ensure a clear understanding of the project.

b) Additionally, only one site photograph has been provided. Complete, uncut pictures from all sides must be submitted to clearly show the existing site conditions, context, and surroundings.

c) Since the building is a heritage-listed Grade III building, the proposal shall ensure that it follows the applicable heritage bylaws for construction and structural safety under Unified Building bylaws 2016, annexure II.

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, 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, due to incomplete documentation and an incomplete submission at the formal stage, the proposal is being returned to the concerned local body, i.e., MCD, without consideration by the Commission. The architect is advised to address all the above observations and provide a pointwise incorporation and response.

1. The South DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meetings on December 06, 2023, January 11, 2024, and January 25, 2024; specific observations were made.
3.  The revised building plan proposal 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 approved the proposal in its meeting on 25.01.2024 at the same address, where the plot size was recorded as 88.32 sq.m. However, the proposal has now been resubmitted at the formal stage with a revised plot area of 174.94 sq.m, without any clarification or explanation for this deviation. Being at the formal stage, the submission shall be self-explanatory for the Commission's understanding.

b) During an online discussion with the architect, it was revealed that work is already underway, and certain areas have been demolished. However, this is not reflected in the photographs submitted to the site. Additionally, the submission does not clarify which areas are proposed for demolition or reconstruction, to understand the project scope fully. Updated site photographs marking the extent of demolition and rebuilding must be provided for a comprehensive review of the scheme.

c) Since the proposal is being resubmitted with increased plot size, the project report shall provide reasons for the increase in plot size and other related details to clarify the reasons for resubmitting it to the Commission. A superimposed plan showing the previously approved plan and the current proposal to show the deviations and ensure complete documentation.

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

e) 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.

f) All service equipment, rainwater pipes, water tanks, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, transformers, 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.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity, is incomprehensible, and is incomplete in documentation; thereby, 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 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 meetings on December 5, 2024, and December 26, 2024; specific observations were made.
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 along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-19122424024 dated 03.01.2025. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, 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, 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 CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. 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.
3. The proposal with respect to the Implementation of the Sound and Light/ Multimedia Show at Rashtrapati Bhavan received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised; the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Since the complex is of national importance and holds a heritage significance, it is suggested that the proposed plastic chairs be replaced with more aesthetic-looking stackable chairs made of appropriate material to ensure the temporary seating arrangement does not spoil the urban and environmental aesthetics. 

b) From the submitted options of the control room, option no. three appears to be suitable as per the Commission. It shall be ensured that the proposed greenery is real greens and not artificial greenery.  

c) From the submitted options of the Projection room, option A with six projection trusses appears suitable. It shall be ensured that the proposed greenery is real greens and not artificial greenery.  

d) As the proposal is part of an existing green landscape, it shall be ensured that all proposed green facades/structures/elements are similar to the existing green species to ensure coherence. Also, wherever green screening is proposed, it shall be real greenery instead of artificial. 
 

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the Revised Layout Master plan at its meeting on January 06, 2019, and specific observations were given.
3. The building plan proposal for the WUS Health Centre 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 proposed submission does not clarify which parts are being demolished and reconstructed. Thus, a superimposed plan showing the existing retained, demolished, and proposed should be clearly shown in a single drawing.

b) The Commission does not appreciate the design of the entry porch. For example, the horizontal brick band at the parapet appears to be different from the rest of the building's design vocabulary, which has more vertical elements, such as brickwork, exposed concrete panels, and jaali; more options shall be provided for the same. Also, the coping detail should slope inwards to ensure rainwater does not spoil the façade.

c) As part of the internal furniture layout, it was observed that no designated areas had been designed for waiting, which might spill over into the 2.4m corridor, causing restricted movement in public interface spaces. The Commission suggests designing proper waiting areas on different floors and departments.

d) The materiality in 3D views is missing, making the submission incomplete and unclear. All 3D views (including bird'- '-eye views) shall have materiality explaining the treatment of the façade.  

e) 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.

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

g) 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.

h) 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 submission lacks clarity and is incomprehensible, so the Commission could not appreciate the proposal 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. 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, and January 09, 2025, respectively; observations were made.
4. The layout and building plan proposal for the Academic and Hostel Block 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-03012562001 dated 14.01.2025. Based on the documentation, including drawings and photographs, the following observations are to be complied with:

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

b) 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.

c) 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.

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.

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 proposal was deferred.

1. The North-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 ‘Haveli at 384 Haveli Haider Quli’ is a listed Grade-III heritage building at Serial No. 145 in the Gazette notification no. F. No. 13(43)MB/UD/2014/1602 dated July 29, 2016 issued by the Department of Urban Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
4. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The Commission noted that the case for additions and alterations does not account for or include the existing construction on the site, as it pertains exclusively to the proposed modifications.

b) Since the building is a heritage-listed Grade III building, the proposal shall ensure that it follows the applicable heritage bylaws for construction and structural safety under Unified Building bylaws 2016, annexure II.

c) The submission is incomplete, i.e., the 3D views are missing. Being at the formal stage, the submission shall contain annotated 3D views (of all sides), including a bird' s-eye view showing the utilities & services on the terrace. Also, the 3D view shall show the surrounding site context and clearly mark the areas proposed for addition/alteration to provide clarity in the design scheme.

d) Only external photographs of the building are provided, but since the proposal is at the formal stage, interior photographs of the structure, including the terrace, will be submitted. Along with this, photographs of the surrounding site context will be shown to explain the site setting.

e) 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.

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

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) It is suggested that balusters be replaced with Jaali to ensure safety and low maintenance of the structure.

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 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 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) It is suggested that balusters be replaced with Jaali to ensure safety and low maintenance of the structure.

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.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting on October 16, 2020; specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on December 12, 2024; specific observations were given
4. 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 Observation letter no: OL-09122458044 dated 17.12.2024. Based on the replies submitted and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that unsatisfactory compliance had been given to its previous observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter No. OL-09122458044 dated 17.12.2024, which is not appreciated.

b) Again, it is reiterated that the Commission did not approve the proposal submitted at the formal stage and returned it with detailed observations. There was no approval (deemed approval) from the DUAC side due to crossing the threshold time limit:

“…….the proposal received at the formal stage was reviewed during the Commission's meeting on 16.10.2020, and the decision was communicated via DUAC observation letter no. OL-13102055061 dated 21.10.2024, well within the stipulated timeframe. Notably, the process for deemed approval requires 15 days. The necessary approvals from the concerned local authority should be submitted, along with a copy of the deemed sanction…..”

c) Furthermore, a cropped screenshot of the MCD proforma has been submitted, displaying extracts provided by the architect, which indicates that the DUAC rejected the proposal on 21.10.2020. This contradicts the architect’s claim that the proposal is deemed approved due to exceeding the threshold time limit, which is unacceptable. To ensure clarity and accuracy, the complete (unedited) MCD proforma and the official approval letter issued by the MCD must be submitted.

d) Furthermore, the Commission provided a comprehensive list of detailed observations when rejecting the case in its meeting held on October 16, 2020. To assess whether these suggestions have been incorporated during the finalisation and construction of the superstructure, a comparative presentation with side-by-side slides—showing the previously submitted proposal from 2020 and the current actual built construction—must be provided.

5. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity, and inappropriate replies were submitted to the Commission's previous observations; thereby, the Commission could not appreciate the proposal judiciously. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and furnish pointwise incorporation and reply.