1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1634th meeting held on 27.01.2022 was discussed.

Completion plans proposal of a Primary school building in Nizamuddin (East).

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

2. The Commission approved the additions/alterations of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 21, 2014. The NOC of the building plan proposal was not accepted at the meeting held on October 16, 2020, specific observations were given. The concept for the Modified colour scheme of the elevation façade was accepted in the meeting of the Commission held on January 08, 2021.

3. The completion plan proposal for NOC received (online) at the completion 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-08102058010 dated 21.10.2020. Based on the submission made and the replies submitted the NOC for the completion plan is accepted.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on November 06, 2019, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-29101956008 dated 08.11.2019 while approving (formal approval), the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while approving the building proposal at the formal stage vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-29101956008 dated 08.11.2019 beside others the  following observation was given:

“......double stack parking in the front set-back to be removed and located elsewhere............1% of the project cost needs to be spent on ‘work of art’........”

However, the drawings submitted at the completion stage shows the double-stack parking in the setback area. Photographs of the double stack parking shall be submitted to substantiate its actual execution at the site.  The conditions for approval (formal) has not been fulfilled by the architect while submitting the proposal for NOC at the completion stage. 

b) Cropped photographs of the completion plan proposal have been submitted which do not clearly indicate the required details. The proposal has been submitted at the completion stage but an appropriate number of photographs (including interior areas) of the actually built construction, to substantiate an actual work executed at the site, has not been provided. The proposal being at the Completion stage needs to provide uncut/clear photographs to substantiate an actual work executed at the site including boundary wall, gate, parking, meter room/11KV room, ramps, landscape, elevational façade, screening of services, screening of DG set/exhaust pipes etc.

c) Some of the photographs indicate that the construction work is still in progress at the site. The Commission observed that the proposal for NOC for completion approval shall be submitted once all the works including civil, landscape etc. is complete at the site.

d) Also, the proposal being at the Completion stage need to provide an actual Artwork executed at the site. The same shall be provided with an appropriate number of photographs of actual work of public art executed at the site.

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

4. The architect is advised to adhere to all above observations given by the Commission and the proposal for NOC for completion plan approval shall be submitted once all the works including civil, landscape etc. is complete at the site and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observation is to be complied with:

a) All water tanks, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels 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.

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 June 21, 1996, specific observations were given. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a lift from ground to the fourth floor, administrative area on the second floor, and fourth floor) at its meeting held on January 27, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a lift from ground to the fourth floor, administrative area on the second floor, proposed fourth floor above) 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-18012222006 dated 03.02.2022. 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 water tanks, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels 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.

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. The proposal for NOC for completion plan was not accepted in the meeting held on November 03, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The proposal for NOC for completion plan received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-29102148016 dated 13.11.2021, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) 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...…”

Though, the Commission considers the proposals based on the certification related to building bye-laws etc. furnished by the concerned local body. Comments from the concerned local body i.e. DDA were found to be missing in the submission However, Commission examined the proposal purely on the aesthetic aspects and found it to be acceptable.

b) The Concerned local body i.e. DDA shall ensure adherence to the applicable rules/regulations/guidelines in the matter of completion including requisite car parking requirements.

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 December 16, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the revised submission in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-09122161038 dated 21.12.2021. 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 water tanks, plumbing pipes, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels 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.

Building plans proposal (for demolition and reconstructions) in respect of Senior Secondary School for St. Marks Christian Educational Society at plot no. A2, Janakpuri. (Conceptual stage).

1. The proposal was directly submitted by the architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. No previous record of the approval taken (formal approval) was found in the available record of the Commission.

3.The building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction (addition of a new building block comprising of two basement+ground+four floors above) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx meetings who provided clarifications to the observations of the Commission. Based on the discussion held  and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal 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 in and around the site, for a better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.

b) A contextual plan is to be provided to show the site’s relationship with the surroundings. The site design appears to be vehicle oriented. It needs to be appropriately designed taking into consideration the convenience of the users (students). A lot of space is getting wasted in vehicular circulation. This can be minimized by efficient building design. The current submission lacks coherence and clarity at the site planning/zoning level and needs to be addressed foremost.

c) The architect has indicated in the project report that the existing superstructure will be demolished once the proposed building is constructed at the site in the next phase. The Commission opines that an overall master planning of the design scheme shall be submitted with phasing to understand the scheme better.

d) The presence of a 6.0m wide road in between the academic block and playground would be conflicting for pedestrian and vehicular movement, thus making it unsafe for students to cross over. Thus, the access to the playground shall be such that it is seamless without coming into conflict with vehicles for the safety of the users. Also, there seems to be no spillover area from the academic block to the playground, thus making it unsafe. Provisions for the same shall be made in the revised submission.

e) The turning radius for the buses and cars does not seem to be appropriate. Also, the entry to the basement does not seem workable and needs to be detailed by the provision of a detailed section.

f) The design for basement parking is not rational i.e. it is not designed efficiently to accommodate a maximum number of car parking. Also, the movement bays do not seem appropriate for the 2-way movement of cars and the same is to be redefined/detailed and resubmitted.

g) The scale of the central badminton court does not seem appropriate as compared to the scale of the building and thus shall be reviewed and revised in the layout. The building being G+5, the inner court is too narrow and might not get the appropriate amount of light and ventilation.

h) The permissible FAR for the complex is 150, whereas only 84 has been used in the submitted proposal. It is strongly suggested to maximise the FAR usage so as to design keeping in mind the future requirements including parking so that later the design does not need major modifications and all the possibilities are incorporated at the initial design stage.

i) The auditorium provided on the third and fourth floor does not seem to have any pre-function areas for the students providing inadequate access inspite of being planned for a high capacity of about 410 users. The same shall be relooked at and incorporated in the design.

j) The complex seems to lack appropriate breathing spaces and congregation space for students thus reducing the scope of natural light and ventilation. The corridors especially shall be such designed that they receive ample natural light and ventilation for the health and safety of the users.

k) Details of the structures located close to the boundary wall including ESS etc. to be duly incorporated in the design. Also, the screening mechanism for the same and other srvices like DG set etc. be detailed and reflected in the respective layout.

l) Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory. In absence of sufficient information provided by the architect, the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission.

4. The architect is advised to revise the submission adhering to all the above observations given by the Commission and submit a complete revised submission (with complete drawings/documentation etc.) and also submit an overall master plan of the scheme keeping in mind the future requirements with full utilisation of the FAR  including requisite parking requirements for the consideration of the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

Proposed Kiran Nadar Museum of Art & Kiran Nadar Centre on Plot no. 3 & 4 (Amalgamated) Mustatil no.19, Killa no.17(4-16), 18(4-16), 19(4-16), 20(4-16) & Mustatil no. 19, Killa no. 11/2min (3-19), 12(4-16), 13(4-16),14(5-14) at Village Samalkha, Tehsil Vasant Vihar. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was directly submitted by the architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx meetings who provided clarifications to the observations of the Commission related to inconsistencies observed in the submission related to ownership of the plot. The architect admitted that there are inconsistencies in the submission and assured for its rectification, the following observations are to be completed with:

a) The Commission observed a building proposal for a Commercial building on plot no-4 Mustatil No. 19, Killa Nos. 11/2 Min (3-19), 12 (4-16), 13 (4-16) and 14 (5-14) at Village Samalkha, Tehsil Vasant Vihar was accepted at the conceptual stage at its meeting held on December 18, 2020.

b) Now, the building plan proposal for Kiran Nadar Museum of Art & Kiran Nadar Centre on Plot no. 3 & 4 (Amalgamated) was received (online) at the conceptual stage for the consideration of the Commission. However, some of the design slides show the ownership of plot no-4 with M/s Pasco Hotels Pvt Ltd. The Commission observed that the cases related to amalgamation of plots does not fall with in the perview of the Commission.

3. Considering the inconsistencies as stated above & its judicious examination, the Commission would consider the proposal at conceptual stage, after receiving compliances as discussed with the architect on Cisco WebEx meetings. In absence of clarity on the subject, it is returned to the architect without consideration of the Commission.

Building plans proposal in respect of additions/alterations in Institutional building at Plot no. 16 X, Karkardooma, Institutional Area (New millennium education society). (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was directly submitted by the architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 27, 2003. The NOC for completion was accepted in the meeting held on January 19, 2011. The proposal for additions/alterations (addition of 4th and 5th floor above) was approved in the meeting held on December 19, 2012.

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of 6th and 7th floor above) was received (online) at the conceptual stage and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The submitted photographs show the presence of a religious structure at the entrance of the complex. Whereas, the layout shows the presence of car parking at the same place. Clarity on the same needs to be provided as the parking arrangement is unclear.

b) An appropriate number of uncut photographs of the existing superstructure from all sides (including interior areas) structures in the setbacks, religious structure visible in some of the photographs, basement, underground pump room needs to be supplemented to understand the overall scheme better.

c) A lot of discrepancies have been noticed in the submission i.e. Landscape plan shows the green area at the rear of the site, whereas the 3d views show the hard paved surface, which needs to be detailed and clarified.  

d) The parking statement furnished by the architect indicates the requisite parking requirements as 50 ECS with a provision to accommodate 34 ECS on the open surface which does not seem to be not functional. How this surface parking is accommodated shall be detailed and shown in the appropriate drawings. The Commission opined that not addressing requisite parking requirements would mar the visual and urban aesthetics of the site, needs to be addressed accordingly in the premises itself.

e) It was observed that the proposal has been submitted for addition/ alteration (addition of the 6th and 7th floor above). A lot of live/dead load is being added to the existing building. Considering structural changes in the existing building structure shall be such designed that it can withstand weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquake etc.

f) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air conditioner units, DG set and its exhaust pipes, solar panels 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.

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 EWS Housing at Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh for Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was directly submitted by the architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The proposal was deferred.

Building plans proposal in respect of Addition/Alteration in Kushagra Nursery School at Plot No.02, OCF, B-11, Vasant Kunj. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was directly submitted by the architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The proposal was deferred.

Building plans proposal in respect of Motel building on land bearing Khasra no. 38/17, 38/23/2, 38/24/1, 38/24/2, 38/25/1, 40/4/1, 40/4/2, 40/5/1, 40/6/1/2 at village Samalkha. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was directly submitted by the architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The proposal was deferred.

Building plans proposal for addition/alterations in respect of Motel building on Khasra no.51/1 min, 51/10 min, 51/26 min, 51/6 min situated at village Bakoli. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was directly submitted by the architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The proposal was deferred.

Building plans proposal in respect of Additions/Alterations in Senior Secondary School for Sanatan Dharam Adarsh Shiksha Sansthan at Mayur Vihar, Phase-I (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was directly submitted by the architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The proposal was deferred.

Completion plan proposal in respect of Hostel Building for Working Women at INA opposite Vikas Sadan. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was directly submitted by the architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The proposal was deferred.