Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1648th meeting held on 28.04.2022.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1648th meeting held on 28.04.2022 was discussed.

Completion plan proposal in respect of Institute of Integrated Learning in Management (IILM) at plot no. 60, 61 & 62, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 20, 2017. However, the Commission did not approve the revised building plan proposal at its meetings held on March 07, 2018, and April 05, 2018, specific observations were given. The building plan proposal for NOC for completion was not accepted in the meeting of the Commission held on January 06, 2022, and on March 24, 2022, respectively specific observations were given.

3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-21032249002 dated 30.03.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. It was observed that in terms of the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-21032249002 dated 30.03.2022 inadequate compliance for this has been given.

b. The Commission observed that the proposal has been submitted for NOC for completion, approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) should be superimposed on the plans/elevations/sections etc., over actual built structure on the site, existing & proposed changes done in the design from the approval (by DUAC), to understand the extents of deviations made, internally as well as external changes made with respect to the sanctioned plan, better.

c. The quality of submitted photographs (external and internal both) is not appreciated. The submitted photographs are of low-resolution quality and not comprehensible. In some of the photographs (view-2), rooftop utilities are explicitly visible and appear to be spoiling the visual and urban aesthetics of the complex. The rooftop utilities 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.

d. Also, the provision of a car lift has been taken on the stilts, but photographs of the same have not been provided. An appropriate number of uncut photographs together with the car parking provisions made in the basement should be given to substantiate its actual construction at the site.

e. The work of art shown is not appreciated by the Commission.  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 in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. Overall, the proposal for NOC for completion submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory. The work on building façade/other areas etc. appears to be unfinished. In absence of sufficient information provided by the architect/proponent, the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission.

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

Building plans proposal in respect of IOCL Petrol pump at Khasra no. 36/19, 36/22/1, 36/22/2 Village Mamoorpur, Narela.

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

2. The proposal for the petrol pump received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. 3D views of the pollution check arrangements indicated in the proposal show a new type of mechanism for pollution checking. The Commission would like to know its overall detailed functioning/working etc. with reference images.

b. As per common practice, the structure is a kiosk with several supporting elements (including a computer, printers, pollution measuring machine with pipes, Amirah, air-conditioner, sitting space for the caretakers etc.), but a new mechanism is a compact machine and the Commission is unable to comprehend its functioning/overall mechanisms etc. and thus it imperative to be explained in detail.

c. The area accommodating the Compressor and the Cascade above the metal structure at the rear of the site could spoil the visual and urban aesthetics of the complex, thus shall be screened by considering appropriate architectural mechanisms including vertical greens.

d. The Commission observed that the location provided for Pollution check arrangements at the egress could cause hindrances to the exiting vehicles, and also cause overcrowding. It was accordingly suggested to explore the possibility of relocating it at the entry after leaving sufficient unhindered spaces for the inward bound vehicles.

e. The architect has submitted three options for the work of art. But, their location proposed is not appreciated. Moreover, some other theme-based alternatives should be explored and presented through 3D views etc. for the consideration of the Commission.

f. It has been observed that a large chunk of space is available on the rooftop of the petrol pump, the same can be utilised appropriately for the installation of solar panels above. A detailed 3D view (birds-eye view) should be submitted to understand the installation/screening of solar panels, water tanks etc.

g. The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade thereby spoiling the aesthetics of the facade. Innovative design provisions should be made to screen 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.

h. All service equipment, outdoor air conditioners, water tanks, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, solar panels, plumbing pipes etc. at the terrace 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 revise their scheme addressing the issues related to screening of Compressor and the Cascade above the metal structure and detailed functioning/working of the new pollution check mechanism with reference images to understand its functioning etc. and adhere to the above observations & furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

Building plans proposal for Addition/Alteration in respect of 2789 and 2790, Lothian Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.

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 May 05, 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-30042223025 dated 11.05.2022. Based on the compliances made and the revised submission submitted, 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, 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) 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 Commission approved the building plan proposal (comprising 4B+G+31 floors) at its meeting held on March 04, 2020, and did not approve the revised building plan proposal (for 2B+G+22 floors) at its meeting held on April 21, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the compliances made on the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-12042222021 dated 26.04.2022. Based on the compliances and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The structural glazing is suggested to make a provision for the openable windows at certain locations within the structural glazing to ensure natural ventilation if and when required keeping in mind the orientation of the glazing and climatic conditions of the city.

b. Double stacked parking provisions have been made in the basements (B-1 & B-2) to achieve the requisite parking requirements. The architect/proponent shall ensure its actual execution at the site and the same shall be examined at the time of receiving the proposal at the completion stage.

c.  All service equipment, solar panels, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, outdoor air-conditioner units etc. should be camouflaged (as per 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.

Revised building plans proposal for Addition/alteration in respect of Group Housing complex at Magazine Road, Khyber Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi. (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 revised layout of the Group housing complex at Magazine Road, Khyber Pass, Civil Lines at its meeting held on April 08, 2015, and the building plan was approved in the meeting held on April 19, 2016. The proposal for additions/alterations was approved in the meeting of the Commission held on August 14, 2020, and specific observations were given.

3. The Commission did not approve the revised layout and the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of new towers E (main units), K1 (for service personnel), and K2 (EWS units)) at its meeting held on March 17, 2022, specific observations were given.The revised layout and the building plan

4. proposal for additions/alterations (addition of new towers E (main units), K1 (for service personnel), and K2 (EWS units)) 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-09032223014 dated 22.03.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. Automated parking provisions have been proposed in the three-level of basements to achieve the requisite parking requirements. The architect/proponent shall ensure its actual execution at the site and the same shall be examined at the time of receiving the proposal at the completion stage. All requisite parking requirements should be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines.

b. The Commission observed that the height of the proposed tower (new towers E (main units), K1 (for service personnel), and K2 (EWS units)) is 192.90 meters. It is suggested that the structure should be such designed so that it withstands weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes etc.

c. 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.

d. All water tanks, plumbing pipes, 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) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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 North-DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 31, 2002, and the proposal for additions/alterations was approved in the meeting held on July 07, 2011. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations was approved in the meeting of the Commission held on August 12, 2021, and specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of fire control room on ground floor, a lift & lift lobby & staircase from basement to the eighth floor, extension of  a lecture hall on the third floor, proposed seminar hall (on the fourth floor, fifth floor, sixth floor), proposed seventh floor and eighth floor) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The proposal has been submitted for additions/alterations (addition of fire control room on ground floor, a lift & lift lobby & staircase from basement to the eighth floor, extension of a lecture hall on the third floor, proposed seminar hall (on the fourth floor, fifth floor, sixth floor), proposed seventh floor and eighth floor) above an old construction of an existing six-storey building. Considering structural changes in the existing building, it is suggested that the structure should be such designed so that the existing superstructure can withstand the additional load of two more floors above (including dead/live load) and the existing superstructure building should not be impacted by the additions on the proposed superstructure.

b. All requisite parking requirements should be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines.

c. 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.

d. All water tanks, plumbing pipes, 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) 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 building plan proposal at its meeting held on November 06, 2019, and did not accept the proposal for NOC for completion at its meeting held on February 10, 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 compliance made on the observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-05022259001 dated 16.02.2022. Based on the compliance made and the proposal for NOC for completion submitted, the proposal for NOC for completion is accepted.

1. The Deputy Director-Sports, East Zone, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) vide their letter no: F (11) SA-EZ/HUPW/CC9/DDA/65 dated 22.04.2022 has forwarded a copy of the modified layout Plan of Yamuna Vihar Community centre (approved by the DDA at its 401st SCM, vide item no. 97:2021 dated 22.12.2021) for information and record of the Commission.

2. The earlier Layout Plan of Yamuna Vihar Community Centre was approved by the Commission at its meeting held on 09.10.1998.

3. The Commission observed that the layout plan for the Community Centre at Yamuna Vihar approved at its meeting held on 09.10.1998 shows an integrated development where the site is designed as one complex and the design is done in a unified manner with common open spaces, shared parking and common services. Also, the design being symmetrical ensures the elevation/façade possesses harmony when seen in unison.

4. The revised layout although, seems to be a fragmented design where the site has been divided into plots of various sizes along with the provision of surface parking all-around, which is not appreciated by the Commission, and MLCP as well.

5. The Commission observed that the design (as approved by the Commission) has been altered completely. The approach to this design is unclear i.e. why the original approved layout from DUAC has not been followed, instead, a new proposed layout with fragmented plots is being adopted.

6. In view of the above, the following clarifications are required from the DDA:

a. Though the provisions of MLCP have been made, the proposed layout still shows surface parking all along with the site (periphery and individual plot boundaries) thus making the site congested and vehicle-oriented.

b. The reasons and the suitable regulatory provisions (Master Plan, UBBL etc.) under which these drastic changes have been made.