1. Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of 1619th meeting held on 22.10.2021 were discussed.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 25, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage 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-23082123031 dated 01.09.2021. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a. The boundary wall of the complex to be in harmony with the building façade in terms of the design, materials 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 (including outdoor air-conditioning units, plumbing pipes etc.) 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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the proposal for the campus for the Department of Science and Technology (DST) at its meeting held on September 19, 2018, and the NOC for part completion (for Block-2) was accepted in the meeting held on June 25, 2021. However, the proposal for part completion (for Block-1) was not accepted by the Commission at its meeting held on September 30, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion (part) proposal for Block-1 received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised, the following observations are 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-29092158023 dated 06.10.2021 indicated at sr. no. 3 (a, b, c, d) and 4 inadequate compliances for this has been given.

b. From the photographs submitted by the architect/proponent, it is evident that the works in and around the building is still in progress including the landscape work. Outdoor air-conditioning units that are clearly visible on the ground floor needs to be screened appropriately so as not to mar the overall aesthetics.

4. The Commission reiterated its earlier observations and advised to submit the completion plan proposal for NOC only when all works including signage, screening of services, work of public art etc. is complete at the site 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 building plan proposal in respect of multiplex at plot no-6, Community centre at Sector-11, Rohini at its meeting held on December 31, 2002, and the NOC for completion was accepted at its meeting held on May 31, 2006. The proposal for layout and building plans in respect of extension of plot No.6, Community Centre was approved in the meeting held on January 17, 2018. The proposal for the NOC completion plan was returned by the DUAC secretariat without consideration of the Commission vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-04032148006 dated 15.03.2021 due to incomplete submission.

3. The revised proposal for NOC for completion 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-04032148006 dated 15.03.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. Site photographs submitted to substantiate the actual completion of works at the site appeared inaccurate.  To substantiate & verify the accuracy a site visit was arranged on 29.10.2021 and it was noticed that the actual site conditions were not matching with the pictures submitted for taking the NOC for completion and the time elapsed between the submission for completion and the site inspection was insufficient to have affected the differences observed.

b. It is thus assumed that the pictures submitted for taking NOC have been altered. Graphically modified photographs and distorted data related to the proposal (NOC) which falsely represent site conditions have been submitted - which is fraud.

c. The Commission expressed its strong displeasure and advises the architect not to submit such misleading submissions in future and submit only the factual/correct situation of the site.

d. The architect was advised to revise the proposal for NOC and submit the truthful position at site.

4. The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plans of the proposal at its meeting held on September 23, 2015. The NOC for completion plans approval was not accepted in the meeting of the Commission held on October 23, 2019, specific observations were given. The NOC for completion (for the main building right-wing from the ground floor to the fourth floor) was accepted in the meeting of the Commission held on October 30, 2019. The Commission did not accept the proposal for NOC of Completion at its meeting held on September 09, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal of NOC for completion (for Block C, D and E only) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-04052150017 dated 07.05.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that while approving the proposal at the formal stage, the mechanical parking provisions were shown in the upper basement (Block-C).  But no photograph of that area has been submitted to substantiate its actual construction at the site. The Commission opines that since the proposal is for NOC for completion, an appropriate number of uncut photographs of the parking area (upper basement & lower basement) shall be submitted.

b. Similarly, due thought had been given by the Commission, while approving the scheme in terms of materials, finishes, architectural elements, façade etc. for Block -E (ESS). While comparing the model photographs with the actual site photographs submitted for NOC, temporary green fabric curtains have been used to screen the services, marring the overall aesthetics of the complex and altering the aesthetic and visual quality of the façade which is not appreciated by the Commission.

4. The architect was advised to revise the submission adhering to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on September 16, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised 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-09092161027 dated 22.09.2021. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, 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) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on October 07, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised 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-05102161033 dated 13.10.2021. Based on the response received and revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a. It was observed that provisions have been made for accommodating parking requirements by converting a large chunk of the area on the northern side of the plot into a single level basement and its top surface as parking areas. The Commission opines that considering potential future evolution and requirements, the original design and initial construction should incorporate a double basement (instead of a single basement) that accommodates all regulatory ECS requirements and also design additional stories on top of the same basement’s footprint to accommodate full ECS requirements if and when the permissible FSI is fully utilized.  The additional stories above the basement can be built only when the future FSI is utilized and the top of the basement can be utilized for other activities in the meantime.

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) 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 Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on October 17, 1997. The proposal for additions/alterations was approved in the meeting held on March 20, 2019, specific observations were given.

3. The revised proposal for additions/alterations in the Blocks for type-A, B, C and D (addition of balcony, toilets, and extension of a basement) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with: 

a. The incomplete submission has been uploaded for consideration of the Commission without project report, existing site photographs, all four side detailed elevations etc. which is not appreciated by the Commission. A complete submission (in all respect) with necessary drawings/documentation shall be submitted for the consideration of the Commission.

b. The 3D views have been submitted without annotations thus making it difficult to comprehend the materials etc. on the façade which could have a bearing on the visual, urban aesthetics of the complex. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (at least 6 in numbers) of each block at various angles along with the skin sections (in detail with 3D views), clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations and corresponding to proposal drawings be submitted for better understanding of the proposal.

c. The proposal has been submitted without site photographs of the existing built superstructure. An appropriate number of site photographs from all sides of each block (for which additions/alterations have been applied) shall be provided. They need to be submitted with proper uncut views from all sides.

d. Basic sections have been given without necessary details (including the portion where basement extension has been proposed) and also without elevations, which is not appreciated by the Commission. The proposal being at the formal stage shall provide an appropriate number of detailed elevations and sections highlighting the additions/alterations and other details proposed for a better understanding of the proposal.

e. The basement plan has been submitted without considering structural provisions. It shall be revised and resubmitted with structural arrangements as it would likely impact the car parking provisions provided in the basement including vehicular movement. 

f. An appropriate number of site sections (end to end of the proposed scheme) be submitted for a 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. The elevations and sections need to be detailed clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. Detailed sections reflecting the elevation features (as shown in 3d views as well) shall be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme.

g. The balconies need to be screened appropriately for drying clothes. Innovative architectural features and materials shall screen dish antennas in the balconies.

h. The added structure of balcony, toilets and extension of a basement shall be such designed that it withstands weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquake etc. as it is an additional structure added to the existing superstructure. It shall be ensured it is braced strongly to the building and does not impact the safety of the superstructure while addition/alteration.

i. The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, provisions 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.

j. The parking plan needs to be detailed, i.e., it needs to mark the location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. in each parking lot. Existing parking and the parking from additional FAR (proposed) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with the bifurcation of two. As not addressing the parking requirements would severely impact the overall aesthetics, environmental, and visual quality of the area.

k. It was observed that the location of the public toilet and the guard room etc. are also part of the formal submission but their detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have not been submitted. The Commission observed that these components have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex. The same is to be revised appropriately and be incorporated for review by the Commission.

l. 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.

m. Submitted landscape plans lack clarity in explaining the landscape scheme. They 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.

n. All plumbing pipes/sanitary pipes, outdoor AC units, and service equipment including DG Set, its exhaust pipe, generator, ESS etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. using the same architectural elements and materials.

o. 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 a lack of clarity of understanding, the scheme could not be appreciated and commented upon by the Commission.

4. The architect is advised to revise the submission and submit a complete submission (with complete drawings/documentation etc.) for the consideration of the Commission adhering to all the above observations given by the Commission 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 plans proposal at its meeting held on December 18, 2003.

3. The proposal for NOC for completion plan proposal received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with: 

a. Cropped photographs of the completion plan proposal have been submitted which do not clearly indicate the required details. An appropriate number of annotated existing site pictures of each block for which NOC for completion is sought, shall be submitted (with dates) to understand the actual existing site conditions. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides to comprehend the proposal.

b. It was observed that while forwarding the proposal to the Commission at the completion stage following observation/recommendations has been made in Part-C (completion stage) by the DDA:

“……. Observations/recommendations of the sanctioning authority while forwarding the matter to DUAC for consideration in the Performa Part-C of the Completion stage from serial no 1 to 4 indicates the following:

“…… NO...…”

c. The Commission considers the proposals based on the certification related to building bye-laws etc. furnished by the concerned local body. Taking into consideration the observations/recommendations made and forwarded by the concerned local body i.e., DDA, the proposal is not acceptable and referred back to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for confirmation.

d. Some of the pictures submitted for taking NOC (especially the kids' play area) appear to have been altered and graphically modified, which needs clarification.

e. In absence of sufficient information provided by the architect/proponent, the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission and commented upon.

4. The Commission considers the proposals based on the certification related to building bye-laws etc. furnished by the concerned local body. Taking into consideration the observations/recommendations made and forwarded by the concerned local body i.e. DDA, the proposal is not acceptable and referred back to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).

Regularization of existing building blocks of Janki Devi Memorial College.

(Conceptual stage)

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

2. The proposal for Regularization of existing building blocks of Janki Devi Memorial College received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with: 

a. The Commission opines that provisions for conceptual stage submissions were made for the convenience of the architects who wish to present their design schemes/proposal which are at design stage (especially for large scale proposals), and not for the already built structures/regularization of the built structures.

b. In view of the above, the proposal is returned to the architect without consideration of the Commission.

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

2. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of 26 rooms on second floor, third and fourth floors for commercial/office space) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The proposal has been submitted for additions/alterations (addition of 26 rooms on the second floor, third and fourth floors for commercial/office space) at the conceptual stage. But the architect has indicated in his report that:

“…..the existing building is completely demolished for the purpose of existing development……..”

It is evident that there is an inconsistency between the design scheme and the report submitted for consideration by the Commission, hence needs clarification.

b. The cropped 3d views have been submitted. Annotated 3D views of the whole superstructure shall be submitted with enhanced/better visuals. The scale, proportion, materials etc. are not understood clearly. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (at least 6 in numbers) from all sides including a terrace, clearly specifying the materials to be used on the façade, showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations and corresponding to proposal drawings be submitted for a better understanding of the proposal.

c. The quality of elevations and sections provided is not appreciated (they are very basic), need to be detailed clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc.

d. An appropriate number of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) shall be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. The portion of additions/alterations shall be highlighted appropriately to understand the scheme better.  Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

e. The design scheme has been submitted with diverse uses including banquet, convention facility, guest rooms, commercial and office spaces. Entry/exit to the areas where commercial and office spaces have been planned shall be segregated from the areas for banquet, convention facility, guest rooms etc. No clarity has been given by the architect on how the parking requirements (existing & proposed) with diverse use has been addressed in the site.  Details of the existing number of car parks + additional parking are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with the bifurcation of two. The parking does not seem to be very efficient and functional. The parking plan needs to be detailed, i.e. it needs to mark the location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. The site seems to be vehicle oriented rather than pedestrian-friendly.

f. Provision for short/long term parking to be addressed in the proposed design scheme and shall also incorporate parking provisions for IPT (ola/Taxi/auto) with appropriate movement pattern.

g. A combined mobility plan showing a seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plan from outside to the various areas of the building to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site. It shall be indicated evidently with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement.

h. The air conditioning mechanisms of the complex shall be detailed and highlighted in the scheme along with its screening as these could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, provisions shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor AC units, if any, at this stage so as not to mar the aesthetics later. A scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views.

i. The internal functional arrangement shall be given in the submission to understand its functioning better.

j. A signage policy shall be adopted on the site to maintain uniformity and enable facade control.

k. 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.).

l. It was observed that the location of the ATM, Ladies & Gents toilets, and the guard room etc. provided are also part of the formal submission but their detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have not been submitted. The Commission observed that these components have a bearing on the overall visual, urban and aesthetic quality of the complex. The same is to be revised appropriately and be incorporated for review by the Commission.

m. A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) would be generated in the complex thus, a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location on the site plan be submitted.

n. The proposal is a motel building. A public art zoning plan is ensured which indicates the placement of all work of Art in the site as per its context, location etc. Work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level (human eye) which is also visible from outside, to be installed in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

o. 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.  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.

p. All service equipment including ESS, DG set (including exhaust pipes) etc. ensured to be screened appropriately using appropriate architectural mechanism and be shown as appropriate (including 3 D views) (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. The Commission observed that these components have a bearing on the overall visual, urban and aesthetic quality of the complex, accordingly, the submission shall be revised and resubmitted.

q. Submitted landscape plans lack clarity in explaining the landscape scheme. The landscaping in the site to be improved with appropriate treatment (Hardscape & Softscape), shall also indicate the details of the trees planted, existing trees, levels, 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.

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

Proposal in respect of Master Plan for Redevelopment of New Delhi Railway Station and its surrounding areas. 

(Conceptual stage)

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

2. The Commission did not accept the conceptual proposal for the Master Plan for Redevelopment of New Delhi Railway Station and its surrounding areas at its meeting held on October 27, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised proposal for the Master Plan for Redevelopment of New Delhi Railway Station and its surrounding areas received (online) at the conceptual stage was deferred.

Revised Building plans proposal in respect of multi-level parking with Commercial Development at Pitampura MRTS Station, Madhuban Chowk.

(Conceptual stage)

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 01, 2017. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 08, 2021, specific observations were given. Also, the concept of the building plan proposal was not accepted in the meeting of the Commission held on September 23, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plans proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. The proposal was examined along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-14092127066 dated 30.09.2021. Based on the discussion held, revised submission and the replies submitted, the following observation is to be complied with:

a. The architect has submitted two options for creating scooter parking provisions. After a detailed discussion with the architect, option-1 for the scooter parking scheme presented was found to be acceptable.