Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1643rd meeting held on 24.03.2022.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1643rd meeting held on 24.03.2022 was discussed.

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

2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect during Cisco Web Ex meetings wherein the architect provided clarifications to the queries 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 is located at an important location in Old Delhi which has a very distinct architectural character. 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 around the site, for better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer. The Commission observed that 3d views from all the four sides have not been submitted. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (including night views and birds' eye views) at various angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations and corresponding to proposal drawings be submitted for a better understanding of the scale, proportion, materials etc. in the actual context of the surroundings.

b. The site is open from 3 sides (with roads), but 3D views and details of only the front façade have been provided. The proposal is at the formal stage details of all the four sides of the façade including 3D views, elevations or other relevant information should be submitted to have a comprehensive submission for the consideration of the Commission.

c. A detailed site plan of the site with its relationship to the surroundings including roads, vehicular & pedestrian movement in (to the basement) and around the site was found to be missing in the submission, the same should be reviewed and resubmitted which includes circulation (pedestrian and vehicular), landscape details, details of utilities in the site (location, screening etc.).

d. Provision of proposed parking not clearly understood. The site has roads on three sides, but the ingress and outgress of the vehicles to the basement have not been indicated. Also, provisions have been made for one car lift only to cater to the parking provided in the two basements which appears to be inadequate, the same need to be reviewed with entry and exits for better accessibility and navigation purposes. The car parking location, their movement patterns etc. in the basement should be submitted to understand the overall parking pattern and its movement.

e. The proposed plans and sections do not reflect the architectural elements shown in the 3d views. The plans and sections need to be revised where all the elements shall be marked to co-relate with the proposed 3d views. Additionally, Utilities are to be reflected in the 3D views as well as the drawings wherever provided.

f. The project is submitted at the Formal stage and should submit detailed drawings of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well). Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

g. The DG set and the transformer are placed on the ground floor. But the same has not been reflected in any of the 3D views, elevations & sections. The Commission opines that it would have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex, thus its details including screening mechanism etc. should be reflected in the 3d views etc. The exhaust for the generator should be clearly indicated.

h. The mechanism for air conditioning is not clear in the submission, needs to be detailed i.e. location, areas of inflow/outflow in indoor areas and the appropriate treatments used to conceal/screen the air-conditioning system. The Commission opines that the outdoor air conditioners units on the façade could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, provisions should be made in the design to accommodate and screen the outdoor units appropriately, so as not to mar the aesthetics. Also, it shall be ensured that there is no leakage from the AC unit or related ducting causing deterioration of spaces (indoor and outdoor).

i. A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) would be generated in the complex therefore, a detailed solid waste management plan to depict effective means of waste disposal along with their location and screening etc. should be submitted.

j. Work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at the 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 need to be made.

k. 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. The screening for the same shall also be mentioned and marked clearly in the plans/3D views.  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.

l. All service equipment, air-conditioning units, solar panels, water tanks, DG set, exhaust 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.

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

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 January 23, 2015. The proposal for NOC for completion (Part) was not accepted in the meeting of the Commission held on February 17, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The Completion plan proposal (part) for NOC received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the replies given by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-14022227016 dated 22.02.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the NOC for the completion plan proposal (Part completion) is found to be acceptable.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 31, 2016.

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

a. From the photographs submitted by the architect/proponent, it is evident that the work on the buildings is yet to be completed. The proposal for completion plan shall be submitted once all works including civil, landscape etc. is complete as per formal approval.

b. Cropped photographs of the completion plan proposal have been submitted which do not clearly indicate the required details. The proposal being at the Completion stage needs to provide photographs to substantiate the actual work executed at the site to understand the existing site conditions. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views (including parking areas, landscaped areas etc.) from all the sides to comprehend the proposal.

c. The Commission observed that a chiller plant has been constructed at the site but it was not part of the formal approval given by the Commission. An appropriate number of uncut photographs with a screening mechanism should be submitted to understand their impact on the visual and urban aesthetics of the area.

d. It is observed that the proposal was submitted for NOC for completion. Approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) should be superimposed over actual built up on the site to understand the modifications/deviations, if any, done in the design from the approval (by DUAC).

e. The proposal being at the Completion stage needs to provide an actual Artwork executed at the site. The same shall be provided with an appropriate number of photographs of actual works of public art executed at the site.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission related to built construction at the site, the proposal for NOC for completion plan could not appreciated by the Commission.

5. The architect is advised to submit the completion plan proposal for NOC with an appropriate number of uncut photographs of the built construction (including civil works, landscaped areas, parking, screening of services etc.) to substantiate the built construction at the site.

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

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 January 27, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The revised proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the compliances made on the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-25012223005 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 service equipment, water tanks, 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 DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect (online) but he was not available. Based on 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 and context of the surroundings. Therefore, 3D views of the site shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings including road networks, and structures around the site, for a better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.

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 (including bird's eye view, night views etc.) at various angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations specifying the materials to be used on the façade shall be provided for a better understanding of the proposal.

c. The project is submitted at the Formal stage therefore, 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.  Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

d. The mechanism for air conditioning is not clear in the submission, needs to be detailed and the appropriate treatments used to conceal/screen the air-conditioning system. Provisions should be made in the design to accommodate and screen the air-conditioning system such that they do not mar the aesthetics of the complex. Also, it shall be ensured that there is no leakage from the AC unit causing deterioration of spaces (indoor and outdoor).

e. Provisions have been made for landscaping on the terraces. The submitted landscape plans lack clarity in explaining the landscape scheme. The same needs to be more detailed with appropriate treatment (Hardscape & Softscape) and need to be shown clearly in the relevant drawings, 3D views etc.

f. A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) would be generated in the complex therefore, a detailed solid waste management plan to depict effective means of waste disposal along with their location and screening etc. should be submitted.

g. Work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at the 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 need to be made.

h. 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. The screening for the same shall also be mentioned and marked clearly in the plans/3D views.  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. All service equipment, air-conditioning units, solar panels, water tanks, DG set, exhaust 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.

j. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e. they are not self-explanatory.

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

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

2. The Commission approved the Layout/Master Plan in respect of the Indian Agriculture Research Institute (IARI) Campus, Pusa at its meeting held on April 19, 2016. 

3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect during Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries 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 is at the Formal stage, but the submission made is scanned copies from a report, and found to be not comprehensible. Also, the 3D views do not provide the correct picture of the materials on the facade. An appropriate number of annotated 3D views (including nighttime) from all sides including the terrace (birds-eye view, rooftop utilities with screening) should be submitted to understand the design proposal judiciously.

b. The project is submitted at the Formal stage and should submit detailed drawings of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well). Also, the skin sections (in detail) should be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme, façade details indicating the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, natural stone Jaali including pattern, size, material specifications etc., and planters proposed on the façade along with their drainage details.

c. The framed structure proposed is huge it should be detailed appropriately in terms of form, materials etc. and presented through 3D views etc. to examine appropriately with screening mechanism so that it does not mar the urban aesthetics.

d. The glass detail on the building corner is not clear in the submission and should be supplemented with detailed drawings/sections etc. to explain the fixing, material, specifications etc.

e. The two huge ramps (open to the sky) provided access to the basement, which could lead to problems in case of harsh weather conditions like heat, rain etc. Thus, appropriate solutions like covering the ramp with appropriate material are to be explored to ensure the basement is protected from water seepage etc. and calculations/water pumping/harvesting mechanism be provided.

f. The central court with arrival and reception areas is not detailed appropriately. Need to be revised for the submission along with an appropriate number of annotated 3d views to understand the design scheme clearly.

g. A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) would be generated in the complex therefore, a detailed solid waste management plan to depict effective means of waste disposal along with their location shall be submitted.

h. Submitted landscape plans lack clarity and need to be improved with appropriate treatment (Hardscape & Softscape). They shall be submitted in the respective drawings and shall indicate details of trees planted, and 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.

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

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 18, 2017, but did not accept the NOC for completion plans proposal at its meeting held on March 17, 2022, 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 of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-15032264001 dated 22.03.2022. Based on the revised submission made, the NOC for the completion plan proposal is found to be acceptable.

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

2. The building plan proposal for demolition and reconstructions received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the comments received from the concerned local body i.e. NDMC. Based on the submission made and the comments given by the NDMC, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal is at the formal stage and a 3D view of the front façade only has been given. An appropriate number of annotated 3D views from all the sides including the terrace (birds-eye view, rooftop utilities with screening) should be submitted to understand the design proposal judiciously.

b. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

c. The design of the gate, boundary wall and the guard room (being part of the formal submission) could have a bearing on the overall aesthetics, the same should be designed in harmony with the overall architectural design in terms of architectural elements, materials, texture, finishes etc.

d. The entire proposal shall adhere to all the applicable statutory provisions, and norms/regulations of the prevailing Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ) guidelines.

e. The mechanism for air conditioning is not clear in the submission. The Commission opines that the outdoor air conditioners units on the façade could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, provisions should be made in the design to accommodate and screen the outdoor units appropriately, so as not to mar the aesthetics. Also, it shall be ensured that there is no leakage from the AC unit causing deterioration of spaces (indoor and outdoor).

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 plumbing pipes, service equipment, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, solar panels, water tanks 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.

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

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 3, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The 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-28022222011 dated 08.03.2022. Based on 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, solar panels, water tanks, DG set, exhaust 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 PWD (GNCTD) (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for the existing building (B+G+4) for the DSSSB at its meeting held on June 19, 2004, and the building plan proposal for extension (B+G+5) was not approved in the meeting held on March 24, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and 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 existing 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. The proposal is for the extension to the existing building. The Commission intended to examine the design scheme holistically. From the existing photographs submitted by the architect/proponent, it has been observed that a lot of temporary structures exist on the site like covered shade for cars, generator sheds etc., also outdoor air conditioner units and exposed pipes are spoiling the visual and urban aesthetics of the building complex. Also, the 3D views of the design submitted do not show the correct existing site conditions and context.

c. The exposed outdoor air-conditioner units could be an eye-sore to the building façade thereby spoiling the aesthetics of the facade. Innovative design provisions shall be made in the design itself at this stage to accommodate the outdoor AC units, and it shall be ensured that the pipes are appropriately screened so that they are not exposed on the outer façade.

d. It is suggested that the new construction should be in harmony with the old building in terms of the elevation/façade/material/specifications etc. so as not to mar the aesthetics. Thus, to ensure the new and old construction are in harmony it is suggested to provide an overall scheme to revamp the complex including improvement of the existing façade, screening of utilities (including air-conditioner units, DG set etc.), removal of ad-hoc temporary structures which are marring the visual and urban aesthetics of the complex/site and to avoid mitigating the visual inconsistency between the old and new construction/additions.

e. 6-tier parking is proposed at the entrance to accommodate the requisite car parking requirements of the site, but no plans, elevations, sections, 3d views and other relevant details etc. are provided, thus making the submission incomplete to be appreciated by the Commission.

f. The parking plan needs to be detailed, i.e. it needs to mark the location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. Existing parking and the parking from additional FAR (proposed) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with the bifurcation of two.

g. The pedestrian and vehicular circulation at the site is not shown properly. A combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plan from outside to the various buildings to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site better. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement.

h. A large terrace is available for the installation of solar panels.  The 3d view does not reflect the Services on the Roof-top. The same shall be indicated in the views. 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. All service equipment, solar panels, water tanks, DG set, exhaust 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.

4. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory. The proposal submitted for the formal stage needs to be comprehensive.

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

Revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations in respect of Bharat Jagriti CGHS Ltd., Plot no: 22, Sector-12, Dwarka. (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 layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 24, 2001, and the NOC for the completion plan proposal was accepted in the meeting held on June 18, 2014. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of balconies, room) at its meeting held on March 15, 2022, specific observations were given.

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

a. The Commission observed that the design scheme is for the extension of balconies and rooms in the existing residential units. The 3D views of the design scheme presented are unrealistic and do not represent the actual site conditions and the quality of 3d views is not appropriate. They are very sketchy and the scale, proportion, materials etc. are not understood clearly. The quality of 3D views should be enhanced suitably and annotated 3D views clearly specifying the materials to be used on the façade be provided. The same should be revised and resubmitted.

b. From the photographs of the existing superstructure submitted by the architect, it is evident that a lot of balconies are covered with temporary materials, and exposed air-conditioners are visible on the façade spoiling the visual and the urban aesthetics of the overall complex.

c. The Commission opines that the outdoor air conditioners units on the façade could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, provisions should be made in the design to accommodate and screen the outdoor units appropriately, so as not to mar the aesthetics.

d. Furthermore, the new proposed balconies and rooms have not been sufficiently integrated with the outdoor air conditioners with appropriate screening.  This should be addressed as the complex looks ugly due to the present positioning of outdoor units and exposed plumbing pipes without any harmony or thoughtfulness.

e. The parking plan needs to be detailed, i.e. it needs to mark the location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. Existing parking and the parking from additional FAR (proposed) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with the bifurcation of two.

f. The added structure shall be such designed that it withstands weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes etc. as it is an additional structure added to the existing superstructure. It shall be ensured it is braced firmly to the building and does not impact the safety of the superstructure.

g. The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

h. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory. The proposal needs to be complete and comprehensive.

4. Considering the facts enumerated above, the architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and suggested to resubmit the revised design scheme adhering to all the above observations given by the Commission along with pointwise incorporation & reply.

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 forwarded directly by the architect (online) at the conceptual stage for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 23, 2018, specific observations were given. However, the Commission did not accept the concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on February 10, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. No previous record of the approval (formal) taken from the Commission has been found in the available record of the Commission.

4. The building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction (demolition of existing superstructure and addition of a new building block comprising of two basements + ground + four floors above) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted on the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-18012227007 dated 16.02.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that while considering the case at the conceptual stage on a previous occasion at its meeting held on February 10, 2022, a detailed discussion was also held with the architect and very specific observations were given in writing vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-18012227007 dated 16.02.2022. But the Commission did not see much improvement in the design which is not appreciated.

b. Moreover, the architect has indicated in his replies that the work on the building for which the concept design scheme has been submitted, for consideration of the Commission, has already been started at the site, but this possibility was not brought to its notice on the previous occasion by the architect.

c. The Commission opines that the provision created to consider design schemes (for the proposals where construction is yet to be initiated) at the Conceptual stage to facilitate the architect/proponent to discuss/share the design proposal at the inception stage and get feedback/inputs from the Commission and duly incorporate them in the design at elementary stages before they are routed through the concerned local bodies at the formal stage for consideration of the Commission.

d. But, in this case, the construction has already been commenced at the site which is not appreciated by the Commission which decided to return the design proposal (at the conceptual stage) to the concerned architect without its consideration.

Building plans proposal in respect of Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya (Senior Secondary School) at 330 Mathura Road, Tehkhand, Okhla Phase-I. (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 concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 17, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-14062127045 dated 23.06.2021. Based on the previous observations and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that in terms of the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-14062127045 dated 23.06.2021 inadequate compliances for this have been given.

b. In view of the insufficient compliances made on the previous observations given by the Commission, the conceptual design proposal is found to be not acceptable.

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

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 17, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual 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-15032255012 dated 22.03.2022, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect wherein the architect provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held, replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The main drop off points should be further detailed and presented with appropriate 3D views and other relevant details. It should be ensured via design and architecture that the user/visitor experience is welcoming and inviting. Careful selection and use of appropriate architectural elements/materials should be done to ensure harmony and unity in the design.

b. A detailed lighting strategy to be prepared and submitted to clearly explain the effects and impact of lighting on the design like accentuating certain architectural elements etc. Also, detailed landscaped drawings including lighting arrangement (up-lighters/downlighters) and details including Rainwater harvesting to be included in the submission.

4. In addition to the above, the architect is advised to adhere to all the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. DUAC observation letter no: OL-15032255012 dated 22.03.2022 in the subsequent submission (formal submission) and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply for the consideration of the Commission.

Found conceptually suitable (not limited to these observations).

‘The conceptual suitability is only with reference to the mandate of the Commission. However, it would be reassessed at the formal stage based on the 20-point criteria as available on the DUAC website.  It would not be a substitute for formal approval of the proposal referred through the concerned local body in terms of section 12 of the DUAC Act, 1973.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on December 30, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The 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-23122155061 dated 05.01.2022. Based on 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 plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air conditioner units, water tanks, solar panels etc. shall 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 East-DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 28, 2003, and the NOC for completion was accepted in the meeting held on November 6, 2019.

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a service shaft & office on all floors, electrical panel room & fire control room on the ground floor, CCTV room & computer server room on the first floor, addition of labs, sports room & automatic sprinkler system on the third floor) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

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 plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air conditioner units, water tanks, solar panels etc. shall 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.