Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1614th meeting held on 30.09.2021.

1. Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of 1614th meeting held on 30.09.2021 were discussed.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the revised layout plan of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) at its meeting held on September 02, 2015. The Assistant Professor Apartment 37-B at IIT campus was approved in the meeting held on September 21, 2016.
3. The Completion plan proposal for NOC (for Assistant Professor Apartment 37-B) received (online) at completion stage was scrutinised and found acceptable.

1.  The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2.  The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal for the 100 bedded hospital building at its meeting held on December 26, 2001 and the revised proposal was approved in the meeting held on September 28, 2011. The NOC for completion was accepted in the meeting held on January 11, 2016.

3.  The layout and building plan proposal for Residential Accommodation for faculty and staff proposed in the Phase-III received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

A.  Site Planning:

a)  The Commission observed that the proposal is for residential accommodation, for faculty & staff working in the hospital, in phase-III of the campus and opine that it cannot be studied in isolation i.e. it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, 3D views of the site shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings including road networks, structures around the site, for better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.

b)  An appropriate number of annotated site photographs clearly showing the existing site conditions, including the existing hospital buildings on the site, be given to understand the extent and the type of existing construction across the road. The housing is for staff working in the ILBS Hospital and it is understood that the Doctors/staff have to commute to and fro from the hospital to the housing during odd hours. Pedestrian connections from the hospital to the residential accommodation be planned taking into consideration the safety of the female users and shown appropriately in the submission.

c)  Overall site planning has to be made self-explanatory. The pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the site is not shown properly. A combined mobility plan showing a seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plan from outside to the main entrance to every block shall be submitted.

d)  The provision of proposed parking arrangements is not clearly understood. A lot of surface parking is still scattered all across the site which could spoil the visual, urban, environmental, aesthetics of the area. Also, since the campus is very large having separate parking requirements for the hospital and residential components, to understand the total parking requirements of the campus, the parking calculations (with bifurcation for Phase-I, II and III) shall be submitted. The details for the parking to include parking numbers on surface/basement, circulation etc. so as to explain the scheme unambiguously.

e)  The Commission observed that the requirement for the Residential block (Phase-III) is different from that of an already constructed Hospital block (Phase-I & II) in the same campus in terms of facilities, space requirement, parking, services etc.  Keeping in mind potential future expansion, the planning for the residential complex should be done in such a manner that it accounts for the additional parking generated in case maximum permissible FAR is achieved i.e. the need for total permissible parking to be planned beforehand and the same to be provided in the basement (possibility of a second basement may be explored) and the surface to be cleared from parking so that the freed-up spaces can be put to judicious use including landscaping, recreational spaces etc. which would help enhance the visual, urban, aesthetic quality of the complex.

f)  The parking provisions shall be made such to make provisions for waiting areas with drinking water, toilet facilities etc. for drivers, guards, maids etc. A lot of visitors, apart from the residents, would be visiting the complex, provisions shall also be explored for the long term/ short term parking, the taxi drops off points, its parking spaces, holding areas etc. be indicated in the parking/ site plan.

g)  Covering of ramp leading to basement parking is not clear and shall be appropriately detailed with 3d views/sections, material specifications etc.

h)  As the Hospital block and Residential blocks are segregated by a public road, pedestrian connections to be shown, explaining pedestrian movement across the road. Options for Overhead or underground connections can be explored to ensure safe and seamless pedestrian movement (especially for the female staff during odd hours).

B.  General observations:

a)  The balconies (For residential blocks) need to be screened appropriately along with the provision of screening of drying clothes. Innovative architectural features and materials shall screen dish antennas in the balconies.

b)  The proposal is at the formal stage the submitted 3d views and elevation/sections are not appropriate for the Formal stage submission. The 3D views/elevations from all sides of each individual block shall be detailed clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. need to be submitted for the better understanding of the scheme.

c)  The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units, at this stage, so as not to mar the aesthetics. A scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material of screening for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views.

d)  An appropriate number of site sections (end to end of the proposed scheme) be submitted for better understanding of the overall scheme clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, etc. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

e)  The boundary wall and entrance gate would have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the area and need to be designed appropriately and shown with relevant details (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.).

f)  A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) is supposed to be generated in the complex; a detailed solid waste management plan to show effective means of waste disposal along with its location shall be submitted.

g)  The work of art is missing in the submission.  Work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the building, at an appropriate level (human eye) which is also visible from the outside, to be installed.

h)  The complex should aim to maximise energy efficiency with the appropriate use of the solar panels on building rooftops etc. and screen them by using appropriate architectural mechanisms. The elements of sustainability are missing in the design scheme. These shall be identified and marked on the plans.  Roof-top utilities are not shown in the plan/ 3D views and thus require to be shown on the relevant drawings. Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

i)  Submitted landscape plans lack clarity in explaining the landscape scheme. The sites’ landscaping to be improved with appropriate treatment (Hardscape & Softscape). They shall be submitted in the respective drawings, shall indicate the details of the trees planted, types of species on an appropriate scale, (in terms of the point nos. Six of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

j)  Location of services including DG set, exhaust pipes etc, shall be marked on the site and shall be appropriately screened to maintain urban aesthetics. All plumbing pipes/sanitary pipes, outdoor AC units, and service equipment should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. using the same architectural elements and materials.

4.  The architect was advised, to give a comprehensive understanding of the planning for the entire complex (Phase-I + Phase-II + Phase-III), the proposal to be submitted at conceptual level, where site zoning is detailed so as to make the complex functional and efficient and adhere to the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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

2.  The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on December 5, 1997, specific observations were made. The proposal did not come before the Commission for NOC completion plan proposal. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on September 16, 2021, specific observations were given.

3.  The revised building plans proposal for additions/alterations (addition of balconies, bedrooms, toilets) received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-11092122032 dated 22.09.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a)  The parking requirements of the proposal (for existing/proposed) shall be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

b)  Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

c)  All service equipment should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

2.  The building plan proposal received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a)  Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

b)  All service equipment should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

1.  The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2.  The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 23, 2021, specific observations were given.

3.  The revised building plan proposal for redevelopment received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-20092162013 dated 30.09.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted, the following observation is to be complied with: 

a)  It was observed that in terms of one of earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. DUAC observation letter no: OL-20092162013 dated 30.09.2021 indicated at sr. no. 3 (a, b) inadequate compliance for this has been given.

4.  The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

1.  The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2.  The Commission approved the building plan proposal for the redevelopment of the Govt. of India Press at its meeting held on May 18, 2018. The Commission approved the revisions in the elevational elements & colour scheme at its meeting held on August 16, 2019. The Commission did not accept the NOC for completion plan proposal at its meeting held on August 12, 2021 specific observations were given.

3.  The revised Completion plan proposal for NOC received (online) was scrutinized along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-05082164002 dated 19.08.2021 and the following observations are given:

a)  In compliance to the earlier observation of the Commission, the architect has covered the exposed DG set and its exhaust pipes (horizontal level) with a green coating, instead the intention was for it to be covered with green foliage so as not to mar the aesthetics. The green colour may be changed to match the building colors or replaced with green foliage.  Similarly, the vertical screening of the exhaust pipes on the building façade shall be extended to the ground.

1.  The proposal was forwarded by the NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2.  The Commission accepted the concept of the proposal at its meeting held on April 12, 2017. But, could not approve the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 02, 2021 specific observations were given.

3.  The revised layout and building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-27082124025 dated 08.09.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted, the following observation is to be complied with:   

a)  The proposed entry/exit to the basement car parking be swapped in the Zone-5 (type-IV housing block) to ensure efficient vehicular movement.

b)  Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

c)  All service equipment should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

1.  The proposal was forwarded by the NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2.  The Commission approved the master plan of the overall complex of the Lady Hardinge Medical College (LHMC) and the building plans for Phase-I at its meeting held on June 23, 2010, specific observations were given. The Commission did not accept the NOC for building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 30, 2021 specific observations were given.

3.  The revised Completion plan proposal for NOC (part) in respect of Academic Block, Gas Manifold, 33 KV ESS, 11 KV ESS (1 & 2), AC plant room and Pump room received (online) was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-22092150029 dated 06.10.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a)  The Commission observed that the actual site photographs submitted (for Gas Manifold, 33 KV ESS, 11 KV ESS (1 & 2), AC plant room and Pump room etc.) established that work on theses structures (including landscape, civil, signages, screening of exposed pipes/ducting, services etc.) is still not completed. These structures form part of the overall campus not addressing these requirements could spoil the overall aesthetics of the campus/surroundings.

b)  The proposal has been submitted at the completion stage (part) an appropriate number of photographs of the completed superstructure (for which NOC for completion is required) shall be provided with proper labelling/delineation and uncut/clear photographs from all sides to substantiate an actual work executed at the site.

c)  Approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall be superimposed, on the plans/elevations etc., over actual built structure on the site to understand the modifications (showing existing & proposed changes) done in the design from the approval (by DUAC).

4.  The architect was advised to submit the completion plan proposal for NOC (part) (for Gas Manifold, 33 KV ESS, 11 KV ESS (1 & 2), AC plant room and Pump room etc.) only when all works (including landscape, civil, signages, screening of exposed pipes/ducting, services etc.) is complete at site.

1.  The proposal was forwarded by the NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2.  The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 28, 2000, and the NOC for completion was accepted in the meeting held on January 31, 2002. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations was approved in the meeting of the Commission held on May 11, 2016.

3.  The Completion plan proposal for NOC received (online) was scrutinised and the following observation is given:

a)  In one of the photographs outdoor air-conditioning units lying on the ground are visible needs to be screened/managed appropriately.

Building Plans proposal in respect of additions/alterations on plot no. 11, Shahdara Central Business District, Shahdara. (Conceptual Stage).

1.  The proposal was forwarded directly by the architect (online) at the conceptual stage for consideration by the Commission.

2.  The DUAC secretariat returned the building plan proposal (offline submission) in the year 2010 and 2014 vide DUAC letter no: 22(16)/2010-DUAC dated March 09, 2010 and 22(23)/2014-DUAC dated December 01, 2014 respectively due to incomplete submission. No previous record of approval (formal) taken by the architect/proponent was found in the available record of the Commission.

3.  The building plans proposal for additions/alterations received (online) at conceptual stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a)  The Commission observed that the proposal has been submitted for additions/alterations (as indicated in the project report) but the actual site photographs submitted clearly indicates that the building has already been constructed at site long back.

b)  Further, provisions for conceptual stage design schemes were made, for the convenience of the architects, for the proposals which are still at design scheme stage not for the already built structures. Also, architect has not submitted any detail for the additions/alterations for which the proposal has been submitted for the consideration by the Commission.

c)  Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory. Since, the scheme is for additions/alterations the additions/changes made be clearly marked on the drawings (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) so that they can be identified and commented upon by the Commission. As of now, due to lack of clarity of understanding, the scheme could not be appreciated and commented upon by the Commission.

4.  Taking into consideration the facts indicated above, it was, accordingly, decided to request the architect/ proponent to furnish all the details related to previous sanction/NOC for completion by the local authority (including DUAC), if any, and any other information deemed fit, along with a pointwise incorporation/reply of the observations given above by the Commission. Only then the conceptual proposal shall be reviewed and observations/comments be given by the Commission.