Action Taken Report with respect to the minutes of the 1798th meeting held on 23.01.2025.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1798th meeting held on 23.01.2025 were discussed.

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 on September 04, 2019, September 04, 2020, and June 02, 2022; specific observations were made.
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. The Commission intended to discuss it with the architect (online), but he was not available for discussion (online). Based on the replies submitted, the revised submission made, and the unavailability of the architect for discussion (online), the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The submitted site photographs indicate the presence of an existing old structure on the site that is planned for demolition. The proposal includes the development of Block A (Motel Block), Block B (Service Apartment), and Block C (Showroom), along with three basements.

b) The Commission observed that the proposal is at the formal stage. Given its prominent location facing NH-8 and proximity to the International Airport, the submitted 3D views do not convey the scale and proportions. Improved visuals with better viewing angles should be provided for clarity. Additionally, multiple façade materials have been incorporated but are not annotated, hence the proposed façade materials should be specified. A dedicated sheet detailing all materials must be included in the submission to ensure clarity.

c) The 3D views of the area connecting blocks A and B, including the entrance lobby and the linking section, lack sufficient detail to illustrate their functionality, interconnections, and aesthetics; appropriate details shall be provided for judicious review.

d) Discrepancies have been observed in the submitted 3D views, as they do not align with the drawings. For instance, the façade depicted in the 3D view of Block B differs from that shown in the ground floor plan, which shows a double-height entrance to the service block, whereas the 3D view shows the parking. Since the proposal is at the formal stage, a consistent, correlated submission shall be submitted for the Commission's review.

e) The 3D views of key public interface areas, including the drop-off zones (for the motel and service block), lift lobby areas, and swimming pool (including associated services and utilities), are missing. These must be provided for a comprehensive review.

f) The elevations and sections must be detailed to depict architectural elements, sun-shading mechanisms, and plumbing details. These should be appropriately correlated with 3D views for a comprehensive understanding. Detailed skin sections should also illustrate the façade elevation with specified materials, particularly for the swimming pool area (including 3D views). This should include all associated services, such as the deck, flooring, and landscaped areas, as these elements significantly impact the overall aesthetics of the complex.

g) A discrepancy has been observed in the submission. Block B (Service Block) includes multiple toilets on the second floor and above; however, the corresponding plumbing shafts and pipes, including rainwater pipes, are not shown extending to the ground floor. These details must be appropriately incorporated and clearly illustrated in the formal submission for the Commission's review.

h) Discrepancies have been observed in the submission received at the formal stage. In the terrace-level sheet, Block C is marked as a landscaped green area; however, the 3D view suggests it is a large blank terrace without any provisions of utilities or details of the rainwater drainage system. The ground level is also marked as 00 in the plans, which needs some raise to ensure surface rainwater does not enter the premises. These details must be provided to ensure a comprehensive review.

i) Block C features full-height glazing on all sides, exceeding 5.00 meters in height. However, the submission lacks appropriate details elucidating the structural glazing system, including fixing mechanisms and structural specifics. Additionally, provisions for accommodating rainwater drainage from the terrace for such an extensive glazed surface must be submitted for review by the Commission.

j) Given the ample space available on the terrace of Block C, it is suggested to explore the possibility of utilising this area for parking, which is covered with a solar pergola. This would help accommodate surface parking and free up open green areas to prevent flooding and improve groundwater recharge.

k) A discrepancy has been observed in the parking details provided in the sheet labelled "Parking Plan” It mentions that the third basement accommodates 1,442 ECS. In contrast, the other two basements, having the same area, collectively accommodate only 919 ECS. The figures for the third basement appear to be incorrect, as the available space seems insufficient to fit the specified parking spaces. The same needs to be corrected and updated accordingly.

l) The landscape details for a project of this scale are either missing or incomplete especially for the pool area. The submission should include comprehensive landscape drawings specifying the particulars of planted and existing trees, ground levels, and the types of species proposed. These details must be provided at an appropriate scale, following Point No. 6 of the CPAA (Criteria for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website (www.duac.org.in).

m) The motel is supposed to generate a lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.). A detailed solid waste management plan proposal and its location on the site plan should be submitted.

n) 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.

o) 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.

p) 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 received at the formal stage is unclear, contains multiple discrepancies, and lacks completeness. The architect is advised to address all the abovementioned observations and provide a pointwise incorporation and response.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal (formally) at its meeting on September 12, 2024, but accepted the concept of the building plans proposal at its meeting held on December 19, 2024; specific observations were given.
3. The 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-11122427075 dated 30.12.2024. Based on 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, etc.

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 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 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 CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No record of approval (formal) taken has been found in the Commission’s available record. The Commission did not approve the proposal regarding Kalagram Centre for Cultural Resources and training at its meeting held on December 26, 2024, and observations were given.
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-19122462025 dated 03.01.2025 and a discussion was held with the architect, who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held, replies submitted, and revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for the new construction of 12 training huts cum workshop space for the display of handicraft items, an open-air amphitheatre (seating capacity – 400), a training area and guard rooms.

b) The public art proposed at the entry gate appears to have been designed without considering its base detail. Also, the details of the bamboo gate at the entry are unclear, including its construction details, fixing, significance, and context.

c) The relevance of the proposed dome finished in polycarbonate sheet, i.e., its location at the entry points and the choice of materials, is not understood. A fountain and other landscaping elements are suggested to add interest at the entry.

d) The Commission does not appreciate the Design and details of architectural elements, including kerbstone, bamboo railing, bamboo members around windows in the huts, and street lamps. Their details, including fixing at the base and construction, do not appear detailed enough, as well as their maintenance and longevity.  The public space complex needs elements that can be sustained longer without wear and tear and with minimal maintenance.

e) The gate's matka finish design is not appreciated, as the Commission does not appreciate the materials, including FRP. Also, the construction details do not appear to be strong or long-lasting. More natural, low-maintenance, and durable materials are recommended to ensure the complex reflects traditional architecture.

f) The complex lacks an appropriate number of ramps for the differently abled, thus making it unfriendly for universal access. Also, the provision of double pathways is not understood and appears to be a waste of space; better options for designing the same shall be provided.

g) The pathways are suggested to be lined with trees to shade the pedestrians from harsh weather conditions.

h) The Commission finds the design of the food court unsatisfactory. Including steps near the takeaway counter poses a safety hazard due to the risk of falls. Additionally, the finishing details, such as the fixation of bamboo vertical elements on a glossy surface, are inappropriate. Instead, the use of natural materials for surface finishes is recommended.

i) The 3D views depict extensive hard paving across the complex. The Commission recommends incorporating landscaped green spaces throughout the site to create a more balanced environment. To achieve this, the Commission suggests engaging a landscape consultant to integrate landscape elements into the design, ensuring appropriate open green areas. Additionally, the landscape plan should include a well-defined drainage mechanism. Planters should be incorporated into the design rather than relying on loose pots.

j) The provisions envisaged for air conditioning are not understood. A combined scheme explaining the provision of air conditioning and its screening mechanism should be submitted along with the proposal.

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

l) 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.

m) 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.

n) 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 is not comprehensive and lacks clarity at the formal stage. 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 approved the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on November 15, 2006, and accepted the NOC for Completion proposal at its meeting on August 06, 2014. The Commission approved the revised building plans at its meeting on August 28, 2020, with observations given.
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.

Building plans proposal in respect of residential Group Housing building at plot no.3, Maharaja Lal Lane, Civil Lines. (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, and 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.

b) 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.

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, and January 16, 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 along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-13012527003 dated 23.01.2025. Based on the replies submitted and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the previous observations, communicated via DUAC letter no: OL-13012527003 dated 23.01.2025, have not been satisfactorily addressed, especially point no 3(b), which is not appreciated:

“…..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….”.

The same shall be corrected, and the correlated submission shall be submitted for the Commission's judicious review.

b) The proposal is part of a larger campus with existing developments. However, a comprehensive plan illustrating pedestrian and vehicular movement is missing. A detailed plan ensuring seamless and conflict-free circulation shall be included in the submission. Additionally, the parking plan does not specify provisions for two-wheeler parking. All parking arrangements must comply with the relevant norms, guidelines, and regulations.

c) The furniture arrangement in the food court, including the seating plan, functioning of food delivery and kiosks, etc., is missing and shall be provided to explain how the food court works. The solid waste management system shall also be described in detail, including collection, disposal, etc.

d) The internal layout of the proposed toilets is basic and lacks details, including dimensions. A detailed plan indicating fittings, sizes, and openings, including plumbing arrangements, should be given.

e) Details of the landscaped terraces are missing, which does not explain their function, construction details, or water drainage mechanisms.

f) Details of at least one atrium are to be given, and the dimensions, materiality, and construction of coverings (if any) are to be explained.

g) The solar pergola (as shown in the terrace plan) is a significant building component. Its details, including design, construction, dimensions, materiality, etc., must be provided along with its fixing details. Also, the two members are shown to be suspended at the end; their details need clarification. A bird’s eye view shall be submitted along with other 3D views. Along with this, the building is part of an existing complex, and thus, such massive elements shall be ensured to bear context with the existing surroundings to ensure harmony in design.

h) The orientation of the proposed 3d views is not understood. They shall be marked with appropriate annotations to explain and orient regarding the direction of view. A key plan shall also be supplemented to explain the above.

i) The plans and elevations need to be co-related, i.e., the elements marked in the plans must be reflected in the elevations.

j) 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.

k) 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.

l) 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.

4. 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-13012527003 dated 23.01.2025 and furnish pointwise incorporation and reply.

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. The Commission did not accept the concept of a building plan proposal at its meeting on January 02, 2025; specific observations were made.
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, along with the previous observations of the Commission. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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

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.

Found conceptually suitable (not limited to these observations).

‘The conceptual suitability is only with reference to the mandate of the Commission. However, it would be reassessed at the formal stage based on the 20-point criteria as available on the DUAC website.  It would not be a substitute for formal approval of the proposal referred through the concerned local body in terms of section 12 of the DUAC Act, 1973.