Action Taken Report with respect to the minutes of the 1802nd meeting held on 13.02.2025.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1802nd meeting held on 13.02.2025 were discussed.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal was deferred.

Building plan proposal in respect of Residential building on plot no. 4249, 4250, 4251, 4248/2 (part), pvt. No. 2/9 situated at Ward no. XI, Ansari Road Daryaganj. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) 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. The Commission did not approve the revised building plans proposal at its meeting on January 30, 2025, and on February 13, 2025; observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, and 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 architect's COA certificate for the project 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 did not consider the proposal due to a lack of information at the Conceptual stage (as per the checklist available on the DUAC website). Thus, the architect is advised to provide complete and correct information to ensure consideration of the proposal.

Building plans proposal for additions and alterations in respect of Kailash Deepak Hospital at plot no. 5 & 6, Karkardooma Institutional Area. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting on January 23, 2015, and accepted the NOC for completion at its meeting on July 07, 2022, observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, and 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 architect's COA certificate, along with the Authorization from the owner appointing the architect for the project, 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 did not consider the proposal due to a lack of information at the Conceptual stage (as per the checklist available on the DUAC website). Thus, the architect is advised to provide complete and correct information to ensure consideration of the proposal.

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 (part) at its meeting on June 05, 2024; specific observations were made.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised, along with the reply submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-04062449019 dated 23.01.2025, and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco WebEx meetings, who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission made and 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) It has been observed that the submission has been re-submitted without satisfactorily addressing previous observations outlined in DUAC letter no: OL-04062449019 dated 23.01.2025. Especially, the observation which states to properly delineate the areas requiring Completion has still not been done appropriately; thus, the submission is not self-explanatory.

c) A discrepancy was noted: The second-floor plan is marked as proposed without indicating areas requiring completion, while the upper floors are shown as complete. The architect during online discussion has admitted to having overlooked providing these details. The submission must be revised to include complete information, including delineating areas requiring NOC for the work and deviations from DUAC’s previous approval; to be presented through superimposed drawings of all floors.

d) The Commission reiterated its earlier observation that:

“…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....”

Since the building is located on a prominent highway and has a substantial number of services on the terrace level, they shall be appropriately screened to ensure they are not visible and thus do not mar the aesthetics.

4. Overall, the submission is incomplete, found discrepancy, lacks clarity and is not comprehensive. It is requested that the Architect submit a detailed response to the above observations while 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. No previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plans proposal (for the alterations at the ground and the proposed first, second and third floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised; 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) 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.

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

d) The solar panels shall be integrated into the design at an appropriate clear height, ensuring that the space beneath can be effectively utilised for shading purposes.

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 NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for demolition and reconstruction at its meeting on January 2, 2020, but did not approve the revised proposal at its meeting held on December 26, 2024; specific observations were made.
3. The revised 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-18122424023 dated 03.01.2025, and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco WebEx meetings, who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission made and discussion held online, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The submission does not provide details of materiality, making it unclear which materials have been used in the façade, especially the brown cladding of the pergola on the terrace and the boundary wall railing, including the gate. Details of materiality should be annotated in the 3D views to ensure the submission is complete at the formal stage. 

b) The 3D view shows the guard room (porta cabin) outside the building on the footpath, whereas the plans show it inside the building as a permanent structure, thus showing inconsistency in the submission. All drawings and 3D plans must be co-related to ensure consistency in the submission.
c) The submission is incomplete because it lacks details of the gate and boundary wall, including plans, elevations, and sections. 

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 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 inconsistent and incomplete. The architect should submit a detailed response to the above observations, incorporating each point raised by the Commission clearly and point-by-point.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the Clock Tower proposal at its meeting on January 02, 2025; specific observations were made.
3. The revised 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-24122424025 dated 09.01.2025, and a discussion was held with the architect, who clarified the Commission's query. Based on the submission made and discussion held online, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The elements and patterns in white (including Chatri) are to be replaced with stone/brick insets in their natural shade matching with tower to ensure low maintenance in a public space while ensuring urban and environmental aesthetics. 
 

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 on December 05, 2024, but it accepted the building plans proposal (part: Senior Citizen recreational and creche only) at its meeting on January 16, 2025; specific observations were made.
4. The revised layout and building plan proposal for Social Infrastructure received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the reply submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-14012524002 dated 23.01.2025, and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco WebEx meetings, who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission made and discussion held online, 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).

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 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.