Action Taken Report with respect to the minutes of the 1803rd meeting held on 20.02.2025.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1803rd meeting held on 20.02.2025 were discussed.

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 on May 30, 2018; specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting on May 18, 2023, observations were given.
4. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-17052349004, F.No. 49(4)/2023-DUAC dated 23.05.2023, 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 drawings, documentation, photographs submitted, and the discussion held online, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The submitted site photographs showed that a solid wall with a grill opening was constructed on the left side/east view. However, the submission does not clearly state its purpose and function. Also, the details of the wall are not shown in the earlier approved plan by DUAC as well as in the submitted completion drawings, causing a mismatch. Thus, updated completion drawings incorporating the wall's function with other requisite details need to be submitted in the revised submission.

b) The site photographs of the south side view show exposed pipes on the wall, marring the façade's aesthetics, which were not shown in the formal proposal. All plumbing/rainwater pipes exposed on the façade shall be treated appropriately so as not to mar the urban and environmental aesthetics. Possible solutions for preapproval may please be presented to the Commission to avoid unsuitable solutions on site.

c) Superimposed plans showing as approved plans by DUAC vs as-built to be submitted in the revised submission to highlight the deviations from the approved plans by DUAC (if any).

d) Photographs of the terrace and parking areas are missing, thus making the submission incomplete. Photographs of each portion which require NOC for completion need to submit, all side, uncut photographs for the review of the Commission.

5. Overall, the proposal received at the Completion stage lacks clarity, and incomplete, 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; the following observations are to be complied with:

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

b) 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.

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, 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 North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the building plans for additions and alteration at its meeting on February 05, 2020; observations were given.
3. The revised building plans proposal for additions and alterations (2 basements and G+9 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised; and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission and gave a detailed presentation. 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 additions/alterations, it did not consider or cover the existing construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) All side annotated 3D views shall be provided. It has been observed from the 3d views that a pergola connects the existing and proposed building. Details of the pergola including detailed plans, sections, fixing and structural details are missing. Along with, it has been observed that the details of pergola vary in different 3d views thus showing an inconsistency. Updated and coordinated drawings along with annotated 3d views, including the materiality shall be submitted in the revised submission to explain the scheme of the pergola structure comprehensively.

c) Representation of the terrace level does not provide clarity i.e. the details of solar panels at the roof level as seen in the 3d views is missing in the elevations and sections. Also, detail of screening of services at the terrace level is not clear in the submission; needs to be updated and provided in the revised submission. Updated and coordinated drawings of all floors along with annotated 3d views to be submitted to ensure consistency in the submission.

d) Section through ramp leading to the basement is missing along with details of integration of the two basements i.e. existing and proposed.  Pictures of the existing basement are also missing in the current submission; the same to be provided in the revised submission to provide clarity on the current usage of the parking.

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

f) 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.

g) 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.

h) 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.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity, is incomplete and has inconsistencies, 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. The Commission approved the layout plan at its meeting held on September 02, 2015 and the building plans in respect of hostel for girls at IIT campus, Hauz Khas at its meeting on September 21, 2016.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting on October 6, 2022 and August 03, 2023 respectively; observations were given.
4. 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-27072358018 dated 09.08.2023. Based on the submission including documentation, drawings and photographs, the proposal for NOC for completion is accepted.

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 meeting on January 30, 2025; observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Web Ex 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 detailed and specific observations were communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-25012523001 dated 04.02.2025 with the request to submit a point wise incorporation and reply but the same remain non-compliant, which is not appreciated. Point-wise compliance to Commission’s earlier observations to be submitted in the revised proposal.

b) The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the owner but found that incorrect contact details, including phone number and email ID, were provided i.e., incorrect documentation was submitted at the formal stage. The updated and accurate details of the owner/promoter must be submitted for proper consideration of the proposal.

c) A single site photograph has been submitted, which does not provide a comprehensive view of the site and its surroundings. Uncut photographs from all sides must be provided to ensure clarity regarding the site and its context.

d) Further, 3d views of the proposed design are missing in the submission. It shall be ensured to submit all side annotated 3d views including birds eye views showing details of materiality on the facade.

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.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity, is incomplete and is incoherent, thereby the Commission could not appreciate the proposal judiciously. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and those communicated through DUAC observation letter no: OL-25012523001 dated 04.02.2025 and furnish pointwise incorporation and reply.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting on January 30, 2025; observations were given.
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, and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Web Ex 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 detailed and specific observations were communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-25012523002 dated 04.02.2025 with the request to submit a point wise incorporation and reply but the same remain non-compliant, which is not appreciated. Point-wise compliance to Commission’s earlier observations to be submitted in the revised proposal.

b) The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the owner but found that incorrect contact details, including phone number and email ID, were provided i.e., incorrect documentation was submitted at the formal stage. The updated and accurate details of the owner/promoter must be submitted for proper consideration of the proposal.

c) A single site photograph has been submitted, which does not provide a comprehensive view of the site and its surroundings. Uncut photographs from all sides must be provided to ensure clarity regarding the site and its context.

d) Further, 3d views of the proposed design are missing in the submission. It shall be ensured to submit all side annotated 3d views including birds eye views showing details of materiality on the facade.

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.

5. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity, is incomplete and is incoherent, thereby the Commission could not appreciate the proposal judiciously. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and those communicated through DUAC observation letter no: OL-25012523002 dated 04.02.2025 and furnish pointwise incorporation and reply.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal 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. The Commission did not approve the proposal for redevelopment of GPRA Colony Phase-II at its meeting on January 16,2025; observations were given.
3. The layout and building plans proposal for Redevelopment of GPRA Colony Phase-II, Kasturba Nagar received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a discussion was held with the architect & proponent (online) on Cisco Web Ex 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 formally approved the proposal in its meeting on January 28, 2020, with a net plot area of 173,815.26 sq.m. However, the resubmitted proposal at the formal stage presents a completely revised layout, reducing the area to 169,276.63 sq.m. During discussions, the architect clarified that the project has been divided into two phases—Phase 1, which is under construction and the current proposal, which pertains only to Phase 2.

b) To demonstrate the extent of modifications, a superimposed plan comparing the current proposal with the previously approved layout must be included in the revised submission. This plan should clearly outline the boundary details of both the earlier approved layout and the current proposal for the better understanding and judicious review of the Commission.

c) Since, a substantial chunk of land has been excluded from the current proposal the details of the excluded portions to be clearly marked on the revised master plan i.e. which areas have been excluded from the redevelopment.

d) Since the proposal is part of a bigger complex, it is imperative to understand the current proposal in context to the existing surroundings and already built phase – 1. Therefore, the submission shall provide site surrounding context i.e. annotated site photographs of under construction phase 1 and adjoining areas including the entry points to the site to explain accessibility and movement in detail.

e) A comprehensive mobility plan, including a parking matrix (both existing and proposed), along with their locations and movement patterns, must be provided in the revised submission. The plan should illustrate pedestrian and vehicular circulation within and to the site. Additionally, the common road between Phase 1 and Phase 2 should be highlighted to demonstrate the integration of both phases. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations.

f) Detailed drawings, including plans, sections, elevations, and 3D views of the Anganwadi, Convenient Shops, and Coaching Centre, appear to be missing in the submission. The revised submission must include all necessary drawings for the building blocks requiring formal approval to facilitate the Commission’s review.

g) A dedicated road has been proposed for banquet access, which seems to be an inefficient use of space and increases hard-paved surfaces. Alternative access options should be explored to optimize space utilization, reduce hard paving, and mitigate urban flooding. Additionally, as access control is planned for the housing area, details of the boundary wall, including its location in the layout plan, design, railing, and gate, are missing in the submission. These details must be included in the updated submission to ensure a comprehensive proposal at the formal stage.

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) 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.

j) 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.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity, is incomplete and is incomprehensible, 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 DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised; the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed by the Commission that elements including peripheral greens are missing in the 3d views; thus, showing an inconsistency. Coordinated and annotated 3d views, giving details of the materiality to be provided in the revised submission.

b) Details of solar panel and artwork are missing in the submission. Being at formal stage, the submission shall ensure above-mentioned details to be complete.

c) Location of the pollution check block does not match with the 3d view. All 3d views to be correlated to the submitted drawings to ensure consistency.

d) 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.

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.

3. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity, is incomplete and is incomprehensible, 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 CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on July 13, 2016.
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 proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the concept of the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting on February 20, 2025, observations were given. 
3. The layout and building plans proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, and the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The submitted 3d views appear to be sketchy and basic. For submission at the formal stage, it shall be ensured that the 3d views are enhanced and annotated along with details of materiality to provide more clarity in the submission.

b) Details of the refuge area including detailed plans, elevations, section along with its intended usage to be provided at time of formal submission.

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

d) 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.

e) 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.
 

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