Action Taken Report with respect to the minutes of the 1807th meeting held on 20.03.2025.

1. Action Taken Report regarding Minutes of 1807th meeting held on 20.03.2025 were discussed.

1. The DDA forwarded the proposal (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its March 19, 2001 meeting and subsequently accepted the NOC for Completion at its April 12, 2005, meeting.
3. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (addition of bedrooms, toilet, and balconies) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for the addition/alteration of proposed bedrooms, a balcony and a toilet in individual dwelling units. The Commission noted that the case for additions and alterations does not account for or include the existing construction on the site; it is only about the proposed modifications.

b) The Commission observed that the proposal lacks clarity, as the 3D views do not effectively illustrate the proposed additions and alterations. Revised 3D views should be submitted, marking these modifications and providing details on materiality. To better understand the context, the 3D views should be superimposed onto the existing site, clearly distinguishing the current structure from the proposed changes to ensure a comprehensive description of the design scheme.

c) The addition of toilets has been proposed without adequate consideration for plumbing arrangements. Properly designed plumbing shafts should be incorporated to ensure that pipes remain concealed and do not compromise the overall aesthetics of the building. Similarly, the submission lacks clarity regarding rainwater discharge provisions, including screening rainwater pipes. Detailed plans illustrating the placement of rainwater pipes within designated shafts in all proposed balconies and appropriate screening mechanisms should be provided to ensure they remain hidden and do not negatively impact the building's visual appeal.

d) It was noted that the set-back areas/roads also counted towards achieving ECS calculations (for car parking), which is unacceptable. These areas are suggested to be kept free from all vehicular parking requirements; they shall be kept free for emergencies. Alternative feasible mechanisms shall be explored to accommodate all the existing and proposed parking requirements of the proposal without compromising areas meant for pedestrian and vehicular circulation.

e) Typical furniture arrangement layouts shall be shown to clarify the dwelling units' functionality in the proposed design context.

f) The proposal also includes balcony extensions, appropriate provisions for clothes drying, and accommodating outdoor air conditioners shall be submitted. Their screening mechanisms must be planned at this stage and incorporated in the drawings and 3D views for the Commission’s review.

g) The drawing of the Swachh Bharat Mission toilet, as shown in the submission, lacks a wall between the ladies' and gentlemen’s toilets. Updated drawings showing the complete toilet layout, segregation between the two toilets, and detailed 3D views of the toilet block shall be shown. Also, shafts shall provide to conceal plumbing/rainwater pipes, along with a screening mechanism. Detailed drawings, including plans, sections, and elevations, are to be submitted for the toilet block as part of the revised submission.

h) 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.

i) 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.

j) 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.

k) 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 is incomprehensible and lacks clarity; therefore, 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 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 Commission did not approve the revised building plans for additions and alterations at its meeting on March 13, 2025; observations were given.
4. The revised building plans proposal for additions and alterations 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-07032522109 dated 19.03.2025. 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 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 proposal has been submitted for revision in the additions/alterations approved in the September 29, 2018 meeting. The proposal is to extend balconies in individual dwelling units. The submitted site photographs show that construction work has already started. In their reply to the previous observations, the architect mentions that:

“……The work was started as per sanction on 2018 but at present work is stand still due to revised submission. Approx 60% structure work is complete. The details of work as per NOC, approved in 2018….”

However, the areas proposed for additions/alterations have not been clearly marked on the submitted site photographs, making the submission unclear and difficult to interpret. To ensure clarity, all proposed additions and alterations should be distinctly highlighted on the site photographs in the revised submission, enabling a better understanding.

c) The submitted drawings indicate that the proposed parking has been planned in areas designated for fire tender movement. It was also noted that the 6.00 m wide setback areas have been included in the Equivalent Car Space (ECS) calculation, which is unacceptable. The Commission advises that setback areas and roads, especially those intended for emergency access, must not be used to meet parking requirements. These zones should remain unobstructed at all times to ensure accessibility during emergencies.

d) All parking arrangements must comply with the applicable norms, guidelines, and regulations. Alternative solutions should be explored to accommodate existing and proposed parking needs without compromising pedestrian movement or vehicular circulation spaces.

e) The submission lacks clarity regarding rainwater discharge provisions, including screening rainwater pipes. Detailed plans illustrating the placement of rainwater pipes within designated shafts in all proposed balconies and appropriate screening mechanisms should be provided to ensure they remain hidden and do not negatively impact the building's visual appeal.

f) 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.

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.

5. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage has inconsistencies, is incomplete, and lacks clarity; 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 DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans at its meeting on March 06, 2025; observations were given.
3. The revised 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-28022522108 dated 12.03.2025. 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) It has been observed by the Commission that previous observations furnished vide letter no. OL-28022522108 dated 12.03.2025 have not been complied with, namely, point no. (c ) which states –

“…..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…”.

As per the point-wise reply submitted by the architect, it states –

“Pollution check block is not part of the present scheme hence removed from 3D views”.

The current submission does not match the architect’s reply; it is inconsistent. For example, the submitted 3D views show the pollution block near the egress, whereas the architect mentions removing the pollution block in the reply; thus, the submission shows inconsistencies. Coordinated drawings and 3D views shall be provided to ensure coherence in the updated submission.

b) The submitted 3D views are incomplete, i.e., solar panels, provision of air-conditioning mechanism, and screening are missing. Updated 3D views from all sides, including bird' s-eye views, along with details of materiality, shall be submitted in the revised submission.

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) 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.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage has inconsistencies, is uncoordinated, and lacks clarity. The architect is advised to incorporate all the observations above, including those communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-28022522108 dated 12.03.2025, in the next submission along with a pointwise incorporation for the consideration of the Commission.

1. he DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans at its meeting on May 26, 1995, but the NOC for completion was not accepted at its meeting on November 19, 2004. The Commission referred back the proposal for revised layout and building plans to DDA at its meeting on June 14, 2017; specific observations were given. Subsequently, the Commission approved the same at its August 09, 2017, meeting.

3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion 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 site comprises seven building blocks, with 255 dwelling units in total, with a height of (S+7) and (G+7), including a basement.

b) The Commission observed that the proposal was initially approved in 1995, with a revised sanction for additions and alterations granted in 2017. The architect to provide information related to NOC for Completion of approval. Additionally, it is unclear whether the current proposal seeks a complete NOC for the entire project or only for the areas covered under the 2017 approval for additions and alterations.

c) The architect must provide ‘Before’ images (3D views submitted during the DUAC's formal approval) alongside ‘After’ images (current photographs of the built structure) for better understanding. Additionally, the submission should mark the pre-existing and newly constructed portions (year 2017), ensuring clarity and making the submission self-explanatory.

d) The submission states that 66 ECS are provided in the basement and 459 ECS in open areas. However, photographs of the basement are missing. Additionally, site photographs indicate that access to the basement appears obstructed by debris. To ensure clarity, uncut photographs of the ramp leading to the basement must be provided, along with multiple-angle photographs of the basement showing the parking layout. Furthermore, the allocation of 459 ECS in open areas should be clearly marked in the site layout to demonstrate how the parking is accommodated.

e) The society consists of seven (07) residential building blocks. Clear and updated site photographs must be provided to facilitate the review of the NOC at the completion stage. These should capture all areas from multiple angles, including the seven residential building blocks, terraces, entrance gates, boundary walls with railings, and other relevant structures. This will ensure a comprehensive and complete submission for the Commission's review.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the Completion stage is incomplete and lacks clarity, and 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.

Building plans proposal in respect of residential 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. The Commission did not accept the concept of the building plans proposal at its meetings on February 06, 2025, and February 20, 2025; observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, along with the replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-13022527009 dated 25.02.2025, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission made and the online discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It has been observed by the Commission that previous observations furnished vide letter no. OL-13022527009 dated 25.02.2025 remain non- complied with, namely, point no. (b) and (c), which states –

“… (b) Although the submission is at the conceptual stage, the quality of the 3D views is inadequate. They appear overly sketchy, not interpret scale, proportion, and materials. Annotated 3D views from multiple angles with improved rendering and enhanced clarity, clearly specifying the materials to be used on the façade, shall be provided”.

The submitted 3D views are still sketchy. The revised submission should include high-quality, updated, enhanced 3D views from various angles, including a bird' s-eye perspective. The proposed 3D views should be superimposed onto the existing site context to better understand the overall site setting.

….(c) The Commission observed that the design lacks careful planning, resulting in multiple negative spaces on the site that could become unused areas and pose maintenance issues. The design and layout should ensure that no negative spaces or inaccessible corners are created, preventing them from becoming redundant. A revised layout, integrating open spaces with the built form, should be submitted to ensure a balanced design that provides safety and privacy and maintains both urban and environmental aesthetics”.

The architect mentioned in their point-wise replies –

“We have carefully re-looked at the design to ensure that there are no negative or unusable spaces”

The revised submission continues to reflect the same negative spaces as the previous one, indicating inconsistencies. Efforts should be made to minimise these negative spaces.

b) As the individual dwelling units are different in design and planning, a typical furniture arrangement shall be shown to explain each dwelling unit’s functioning.

c) It has been observed that long, wrapping balconies have been provided on all upper floors, with one balcony projection falling within the setback line. The concerned local body shall verify this as per the applicable Unified building bye-laws 2016.

d) The proposed balconies shall have appropriate provisions for drying clothes and accommodating outdoor air conditioners. Their screening mechanisms must be planned at this stage and incorporated in the drawings and 3D views for the Commission’s review.

e) The floor levels, including the plans, are not marked in the drawings; therefore, the heights and levels are not self-explanatory. All plans shall clearly be marked with floor levels, along with details of mounds at ground level to explain the scheme in detail.

f) Section AA shows a bedroom provision in the basement level, whereas the basement plan shows parking indicates inconsistency in the drawings. All proposed spaces in the basement are to be as per the provisions of the applicable Unified Building Bye-Laws 2016.

g) The site layout shows scattered greens throughout the site, thus leaving no consolidated green spaces that can be used for large gatherings. It is suggested that consolidated green spaces be provided by redesigning the layout plan. Appropriate details of landscaping, including types and numbers of species, details of their location, etc., should be provided to provide clarity in the submission.

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

i) 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.

j) 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.

k) 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 proposal received at the formal stage has inconsistencies, is incomplete, and lacks clarity. The architect is advised to incorporate all the observations above, including those communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-13022527009 dated 25.02.2025.

1. The South DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the redevelopment of WHO-SEARO's building plans proposal at its meeting on August 11, 2018, and the building plans proposal for additions and alterations (addition of service block) at its meeting held on August 08, 2024; observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised. The Commission intended to discuss it with the architect (online), but he was not available for discussion (online). Based on the submission made and the unavailability of the architect for discussion (online), the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The Commission noticed from the submitted site photographs that work is still ongoing, as scaffolding and construction materials are visible.

b) The request for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the completion of the entire complex has been submitted; however, the photographic documentation provided is insufficient and incomplete. Several key areas for which the NOC is sought are either missing or inadequately covered in the submission. These include images of terraces (along with solar panels, services), public interface areas, parking areas (both open and basement), basement photographs, landscaped areas, the main gate, boundary walls, completed public art installations, utility/service blocks, connecting corridors, and the Swachh Bharat Mission toilet.

c) As these components significantly contribute to the site's urban and environmental aesthetics, providing a comprehensive photographic record of all such areas is essential. Clear, high-resolution, uncut, and properly labelled photographs must be submitted, capturing the completed superstructure and all relevant site elements from multiple angles. This will ensure a complete and self-explanatory submission for the Commission’s consideration.

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

e) Approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall be superimposed on the plans/elevations/sections, etc., over the actual built structure on the site, existing and proposed changes made in the design from the approval (by DUAC), to understand the extents of internal deviations as well as external changes made with respect to the sanctioned plan, if any.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the Completion stage is incomplete and lacks clarity, and 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.

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