Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1624^th meeting held on 18.11.2021 was 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 November 11, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of structural column arrangements on the ground floor, additions/alterations on the first floor (demolition of some part), the addition of residential units on the second and third floor) on an existing building comprising of commercial use on the ground and first floor 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-07112123034 dated 16.11.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted following observations are to be complied with: 

a) It is again reiterated that since the proposal has been submitted for the addition of structural columns from ground floors (as evident from the design scheme submitted) and two more floors (second and third) above the existing superstructure, the structure shall be such designed that it can withstand weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes etc. and can withstand the additional load.

b) The provision of screening of air-conditioning units on the façade shall be ensured so as not to mar the aesthetics.

c) All requisite parking provisions shall be as per applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

d) Plumbing arrangements shall be appropriately planned for better functionality and efficiency. 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 North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The layout and the building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission on the incomplete submission made for the consideration of the Commission. During a discussion with the architect and her team present, it was discovered that they have submitted a detailed presentation containing a total of 155 slides covering each aspect of the design scheme. However, due to limitations on the MCD online portal (where a single file is limited to 10 MB only), the submission was uploaded in 6 parts on the MCD online portal. However, only part-1 is received on the DUAC online portal for the consideration of the Commission.

3. The Commission observed that the proposal is at the formal stage and incomplete submission is received in the DUAC. Due to insufficient information, the proposal could not be examined by the Commission and commented upon.

4. Given the facts enumerated above, it was decided to return the proposal to the concerned local body i.e. North DMC without consideration to the Commission with a request to ensure proposals complete in all respect only shall be forwarded on the DUAC online portal for consideration of the Commission.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the PWD GNCTD (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 previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-30092161031 dated 13.10.2021 for which no pointwise reply has been submitted by the architect. Based on the revised submission the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Inconsistency observed in the submitted proposal section AA and BB the same shall be revised and duly coordinated with the plan. It shall be ensured that coordinated drawings (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) shall be submitted for the consideration of the Commission.

b) It is understood that most of the classrooms may not be air-conditioned, but can preplan for potential additions in future including the administrative areas, principal rooms etc. which could be using separate air-conditioning units. Air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, the 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.

c) The primary use of the building is school, the site seems to be vehicle oriented (being peripheral road all around the building block) rather than pedestrian (students) friendly. Also, it has been observed that the students have to cross the vehicular road to access the playground which is a conflict, considering their safety and security parking provisions made towards the playground side shall be removed.

d) Universal accessibility shall be ensured throughout the school campus including internal areas as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

e) The design of the gate and the boundary wall would have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex, the same is missing in the submission. The gate and the boundary wall details, including plans/elevations/sections/3D views, as appropriate shall be provided.

f) 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.

g) 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.

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

Building plans proposal in respect of New Building at Todapur for Functioning of Traffic Offices. (Conceptual Stage)

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

2. The building plan proposal in respect of new building received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission related to the redevelopment of the new building in the campus consisting of many existing buildings, size and workability of the proposed basement, requisite parking provisions made on the surface and the basement, location of DG set, screening of DG exhaust pipes, screening of outdoor airconditioning units/ toilet plumbing pipes, an overall master plan of the whole campus etc. Based on the discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) During a discussion with the architect, the architect has informed that the proponent is envisioned to redevelop the whole campus, but for now, the design scheme for the redevelopment of a single building has been submitted for the consideration of the Commission.

b) The Commission intended to examine the design proposal holistically not in isolation i.e. it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities etc. Also, a complete master plan of the whole campus shall be prepared and the buildings can be constructed in a phase-wise manner.

c) Also, considering the size, the requisite parking provisions made in the basement seems to be not workable/efficient. The size of the basement shall be revised and made bigger to accommodate maximum car parking and the freed-up spaces can be put to judicious use including open greens, recreational spaces etc.

d) Air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, the 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.

e) 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.

f) 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.

3. The architect was advised, to reconsider the overall design scheme its impact on the visual, environmental, urban aesthetics of the complex/area and accordingly prepare a complete master plan of the campus with a fresh approach, taking into consideration the future requirements and adhering to the above observations & furnish a pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

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

a) The proposal has been submitted at the completion stage. Cropped photographs of the completion plan proposal have been submitted which do not clearly indicate the required details. An appropriate number of existing site pictures are to be provided to understand the existing site condition. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides to comprehend the proposal for completion.

b) The proposal being at the Completion stage needs to provide an actual Artwork executed at the site. The same is missing. Public art of suitable scale to the context, which is also visible from outside the site, is to be installed by using the appropriate medium/theme.

c) No previous record of the approval (formal) taken from the Commission is found in the available record of the Commission.  The same shall be submitted. 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).

d) Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory. The proposal is submitted for the NOC for completion needs to be complete and comprehensive. In absence of sufficient information provided by the architect, the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission.

3. The architect was advised to submit the completion plan proposal for NOC only when all works including civil, landscape etc. is complete and adhere to the above observations & furnish a pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

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

a) The proposal has been submitted at the completion stage. Cropped photographs of the completion plan proposal have been submitted which do not clearly indicate the required details. An appropriate number of existing site pictures are to be provided to understand the existing site condition. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides to comprehend the proposal for completion.

b) The proposal being at the Completion stage needs to provide an actual Artwork executed at the site. The same is missing. Public art of suitable scale to the context, which is also visible from outside the site, is to be installed by using the appropriate medium/theme.

c) No previous record of the approval (formal) taken from the Commission is found in the available record of the Commission.  The same shall be submitted. 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).

d) Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory. The proposal is submitted for the NOC for completion needs to be complete and comprehensive. In absence of sufficient information provided by the architect, the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission.
3. The architect was advised to submit the completion plan proposal for NOC only when all works including civil, landscape etc. are complete and adhere to the above observations & furnish a pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the layout and building plan proposal in respect of Residential Accommodation for faculty and staff (Phase III) at its meeting held on October 14, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised Layout and Building plan proposal in respect of Residential Accommodation for faculty and staff (Phase III) 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-11102155049 dated 20.10.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is at the formal stage and the quality of submitted drawings is not readable and unacceptable. Drawings should be submitted in an appropriate medium with adequate line thickness and colour code as prescribed by the local body/byelaws, for clarity and a better understanding of the proposal. The same shall be resubmitted in a high-resolution format.

b) Due to lack of clarity of information, the proposal is not clearly understood by the Commission and commented upon.

4. The architect was advised to resubmit the proposal in a high-resolution format and adhere to the above observations & furnish a pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

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

3. The revised  layout and building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a new block-IV and addition of two floors above on an existing block (block-III)) received (online) at the formal stage were scrutinised and 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.