Action Taken Report with respect to the minutes of the 1804th meeting held on 27.02.2025.

1. Action Taken Report regarding Minutes of 1804th meeting held on 27.02.2025 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) 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. he DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the revised building plans at its meeting on January 20, 2010, and the NOC was accepted at completion at its meeting held on April 27, 2011. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on September 29, 2018; specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plans proposal for additions and alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the drawings, documentation and photographs submitted, 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 proforma lacks Owner details, including name, contact information, and email ID, which must be provided to ensure a complete submission at the formal stage. Additionally, the submitted drawings lack the architect’s credentials, including address, signature, etc., rendering the submission incomplete.

c) The submitted site photographs indicate ongoing construction work; however, no details regarding this have been provided in the submission, making it unclear and incomprehensible. Additionally, the current proposal involves additions and alterations in nearly every dwelling unit. The submission lacks clarity on which parts were originally approved with an NOC, which were approved for additions in 2018 and are currently under construction, and which are proposed for further additions/alterations.

d) To illustrate the extent of modifications, a superimposed plan must be prepared, clearly delineating the areas originally approved with an NOC, those approved for additions in 2018, the portions currently under construction, and the proposed additions/alterations. This will ensure better clarity and facilitate a thorough review by the Commission.

e) As the proposal includes balcony extensions, appropriate provisions for drying clothes, accommodating outdoor air conditioners, and their screening mechanisms must be planned and submitted for review.

f) The submission lacks clarity on rainwater discharge provisions, including screening of the rainwater pipes. Detailed plans illustrating the placement of rainwater pipes in all the proposed balconies (within shafts) and their screening mechanisms should be provided to ensure they remain concealed and do not adversely affect the overall aesthetics.

g) Further, the provision of additional parking for the increase in FAR is unclear. The same is to be marked clearly in the respective layout plans, showing the bifurcation of the existing parking with the proposed parking, their location, and the number. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations.

h) Photographs of the setbacks from terraces should be captured to assess their current condition, enabling an evaluation of the available open spaces to accommodate additional parking requirements.

i) The submission lacks details of the Swachh Bharat toilet, including all side 3D views, plans, sections, and elevations. The toilet should be provided as per the guidelines in the Unified Building Byelaws 2016.

j) The photographs reveal that many balconies have been covered with temporary materials spoiling the aesthetics of the façade and the complex. These temporary coverings must be removed.

k) Since new areas are to be added to existing construction, the proposed structure shall be resistant to natural calamities like earthquakes, strong wind conditions, etc., to ensure the safety of the users.

l) 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.

m) 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.

n) 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 submission received at the formal stage lacks clarity, is incomprehensible, and is incomplete. The architect is advised to address all the abovementioned observations and provide a pointwise incorporation and response.

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

Revised Building plans proposal regarding Plot no. 1, Wazirpur District Centre, NSP, New Delhi.

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

The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting the confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

Completion plans proposal for Multilevel Car Parking (MLCP) Package -9A at Redevelopment of GPRA Colony Sarojini Nagar.

1. he NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the proposal for the Redevelopment of GPRA Colony, Sarojini Nagar, at its meeting held on January 17, 2020. Observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion (Part – MLCP) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission, including documentation, drawings and photographs, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for a multi-level car parking (MLCP) block with G+4 floors. The MLCP is part of a larger site.

b) Since the MLCP block is placed in a larger campus, the surrounding context including the access road to be shown in the site photographs to explain the setting of the building.

c) It has been observed that the cropped photographs have been submitted at the Completion stage; thus, the submission lacks clarity. Uncut photographs from all sides of the building, including the boundary wall, gate, services, terrace, etc., should be submitted to provide clarity in the proposal.

d) For a better understanding of the proposal, side-by-side photographs of the constructed building blocks ‘Before’ (submitted 3d views at the time of DUAC formal approval) and ‘After’ (current actual built construction) are to be provided.

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.

The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting the confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

Building plans proposal in respect of Activity Block for Cambridge School, Block H, Sriniwaspuri (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans for additions and alterations at its meeting on April 8, 1980.
3. The building plans proposal for the addition of an Activity Block 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.

The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting the confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

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 Commission did not accept the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting on February 27, 2025.
4. 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) The proposal is for additions/alterations in all existing floors, i.e., the Ground to the 6th floor and the proposed 7th to the 10^th floor.

b) 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.

c) The Commission observed that the layout and building plan proposal was formally approved on January 23, 2015, and the NOC for completion was accepted on July 07, 2022. The current proposal includes additions and alterations with additional floors. However, the design scheme does not clearly distinguish the existing built structure from the proposed modifications. A superimposed plan must be submitted to clarify, clearly marking the areas originally approved with an NOC and the proposed additions/alterations, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the proposed design scheme.

d) The Commission observed that the proposed additions cannot be assessed in isolation and must be reviewed in conjunction with the existing superstructure, surrounding setbacks, facilities, parking provisions, etc. Therefore, 3D views of the additional block should be superimposed over the existing building blocks, incorporating the surrounding context, including road networks within the site, to provide a clearer understanding of the proposal within its actual environment.

e) The photographs of the existing building block and setback areas appear outdated. To better understand the current situation, including the areas where proposed additions will be accommodated, uncut and updated photographs should be provided with appropriate delineations for judicious review.

f) A discrepancy regarding the proposed MLCP was observed in the submission. While the ground floor plan indicates the area as existing, the upper floors show it as proposed. Additionally, the entry to the MLCP is not depicted in the ground floor plan, making the vehicle entry, exit, and movement path unclear. Furthermore, the functioning of the car lift and its connection to the MLCP is not adequately detailed in the submitted drawings and needs to be detailed and resubmitted.

g) Since new areas are to be added to existing construction, the proposed structure shall be resistant to natural calamities like earthquakes, strong wind conditions, etc., to ensure the safety of the users.

h) Large dining rooms (four nos.) are proposed on the seventh floor, but their capacity and servicing to the kitchen have not been specified. Additionally, the scheme has been submitted without any structural considerations. To ensure the design is suitable for the Commission's review, it must address the functional furniture arrangements and structural aspects, especially since these spaces are planned above an existing building.

i) The kitchen's functioning details, such as logistics, exhaust, solid waste management, internal seating layout, etc., are not provided; thus, the submission lacks clarity. To explain the above-mentioned, appropriate details shall be provided in the respective plans.

j) Since it is a case of addition/alteration, additional parking is generated to the increase in FAR. The details of additional parking, i.e., the bifurcation of the existing with the proposed parking, their location, and the number. Adequate number of photographs to be provided to explain the existing parking accommodated in the upper and lower basements. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations.

k) Complete longitudinal and cross sections to be provided to show details including setbacks, parking on the surface, interlinkages of building to the open spaces and access to the basement, to explain the scheme in detail.

l) A number of additional toilets have been proposed above the existing building. Appropriate provisions for plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, their screening, etc., shall be detailed so as not to remain visible and spoil the aesthetics of the façade and the complex.

m) 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.

n) 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.

o) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, 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 submission received at the conceptual stage is very sketchy, lacks clarity and is incomplete. The architect is advised to address all the abovementioned observations and provide a pointwise incorporation and response.

The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting the confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

1. The SDMC 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, but did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 30, 2025, observations were given.
3. The proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the drawings, documentation, and photographs submitted, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) 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.

b) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, 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.

c) 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.

The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting the confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal (additions/alterations) at its meeting on July 13, 2016, and accepted the NOC at Completion at its meeting held on January 22, 2020. 
3. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and 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 new areas are to be added to 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) 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. 
 

The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting the confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

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, and February 27, 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-18122424023 dated 05.03.2025. Based on the drawings, documentation, and photographs submitted, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) From the photographs provided by the architect and proponent it was observed that the work on site is still in progress.

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

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. 
 

The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting the confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.