Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1653rd meeting held on 02.06.2022.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1653rd meeting held on 02.06.2022 was discussed.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on September 05, 2003, and the NOC for completion in respect of the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Memorial National Committee was accepted in the meeting held on January 14, 2005.

3. The Commission accepted the concept of the building plan proposal for additions/alterations in an existing building at Shivaji Bhawan at its meeting held on March 17, 2022, and specific observations were given. 

4. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations 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-02032227019 dated 22.03.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the submission made, 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. The proposal has been submitted for addition/alterations above the existing superstructure. A lot of live/dead load is being added to the existing building. The structure should ensure to be such designed so that it can withstand weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes etc. and can withstand the additional load.

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 service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, areas accommodating DG set, exhaust pipes etc. should be suitably screened using appropriate architectural mechanisms so as not to remain visible, and mar the aesthetics of the complex (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 building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 23, 2015.

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

a. The Commission observed that the proposal has been submitted for NOC for Completion and the photographs of the built construction submitted by the architect were examined, it was disappointing to observe that this submission has likely been fudged with a high probability that photographs have been graphically modified.  Distorted data related to the proposal, which exaggerated the actual site conditions has been submitted for the consideration of the Commission. Also, it is against the letter and spirit of the Ease of Doing Business (EoDB). It has been viewed seriously by the Commission and advised architects not to submit such misleading submissions in future.

b. Cropped photographs of the completion plan proposal have been submitted which do not clearly indicate the required details. It was, accordingly, suggested to provide an appropriate number of photographs (including interior areas, parking areas (double stack parking provisions made in both the basements) of the built construction to substantiate the actual work executed at the site. The proposal being at the Completion stage needs to provide uncut/clear photographs of an actual work executed at the site including boundary wall, gate, toilet made under Swachh Bharat Mission, parking (including double-stack parking shown in the basements), landscape, elevational façade, rooftop services, screening of services (DG set, DG exhaust pipes) etc.

c. From the photographs submitted by the architect/proponent, it is evident that the work on the buildings is yet to be completed. DG and its exhaust pipes are seen without appropriate screening spoiling the visual and aesthetics of the complex, the same needs to be screened adequately using appropriate architectural mechanisms so as not to remain visible, and mar the aesthetics of the complex (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. 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 be 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 (including DG Set, Exhaust pipes) 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.

The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting

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

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

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the Commission intended to discuss (online) the proposal with the architect but he did not respond to the calls of the Commission. Based on the submission made the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the building proposal is situated in Old Delhi but did not specify the materials used on the façade. Thus unable to comprehend & visualise the proposal with materials, could have a bearing on the visual and the aesthetics of the area. Annotated 3D views with façade materials be submitted for a better understanding of the proposal.

b. The 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.

c. Toilets and the kitchen etc. have been provided without specifying the plumbing arrangements, all pipes should be properly screened to avoid spoiling the façade of the building.

d. 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.

e. All plumbing pipes, service equipment, 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.

4. The proposal is at the formal stage and inadequate information has been provided, thus Commission could not appreciate the overall proposal.

5. 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 April 21, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations 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-15042223020 dated 26.04.2022. Also, the Commission intended to discuss (online) the proposal with the architect but he did not respond to the calls of the Commission. Based on the replies submitted and submissions made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. It was observed that in terms of earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. DUAC observation letter no: OL-15042223020 dated 26.04.2022 indicated at sr. no. 2(b, e, f) inadequate compliance for this has been given.

b. The jharokhas/arch architectural features provided over the windows appear to be obstructive to the overall opening area of the windows, thereby hindering the direct ventilation of the rooms. It must be corrected and such designed so that window openings must remain unhindered.

c. The Commission observed that the building proposal is situated in Old Delhi but did not specify the materials used on the façade. Thus unable to comprehend & visualise the proposal with materials, it could have a bearing on the visual and the aesthetics of the area. Annotated 3D views with façade materials be submitted for a better understanding of the proposal.

d. The proposal is at the formal stage and the inconsistency has been observed in the submission, 1.0 m high railing with a projection of the floor has been shown till the third floor but the same is missing in the 3D views. Similarly, open areas, shafts etc. have been shown incorrectly in the plans/3D views etc. the same must be corrected and coordinated drawings be submitted.

e. The 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.

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, 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.

4. The proposal is in the formal stage and inadequate information has been provided, thus Commission could not appreciate the overall proposal.

5. 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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the building plans at its meeting held on August 10, 2006, and the NOC for completion was accepted in the meeting held on January 23, 2015.

3. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for regularisation (part) at its meeting held on April 28, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. The revised building plan proposal for regularisation (part) of the existing completion of the India International Centre (IIC) 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. Based on the discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The proposal is for the Regularisation (part) and while forwarding the proposal the concerned local body i.e. NDMC has indicated the following:

“…….applicant has submitted plans for regularisation of following existing structures: Room (at ground floor in setback) facility (at second floor) facility (at ground floor) Panel room (at ground floor in setback) for staff and drivers (at ground floor in setback) Passage between main kitchen & Lotus lounge (at first floor)…….” 

b. During an online discussion with the architect, he has indicated that the Regularisation is required only for the change of roofing from fabric to the metal over a dining area of a size 7.0 m X 13.0 m on the Second floor, Electrical panel room on the ground floor and the proposal for proposed toilet under Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) on the side road opposite Ford Foundation.

c. The Commission opines that since the proposal is for regularisation of the roofing (from fabric to metal), an appropriate number of photographs of the existing roofing must be provided to understand its overall visual impact better. All photographs (including interior & outer) must be annotated with material specifications.

d. Inconsistencies have been observed in the submission, the size of the electrical panel shown in the layout (size 3.63 m X 3.63 m) and the details provided are of an electrical panel of size (4.20 m X 3.14 m). Similarly, the layout plan of the proposed toilet under SBM does not match with its details submitted, the same must be corrected and the coordinated drawings (layout, plan, elevation, section, 3D views etc.) must be submitted.   

e. Further, Commission has taken note of the comments given by the concerned local body & submission made and accordingly advised the architect to submit a revised coordinated scheme, in terms of the comments given by the local body, for its review and judicious consideration.

f. Given the inadequate 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 and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the proposal for Integrated Transit Corridor Development Plan from Raja Garden Flyover to Punjabi Bagh Flyover at its meeting held on May 27, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised proposal in respect of Doubling of Moti Nagar flyover & club road flyover on Ring Road was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-25052161008 dated 01.06.2021 and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the replies submitted, the discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The proposed artwork on the wall should be removed and instead the wall can either be kept as exposed concrete or it can be covered with green elements like creepers or vertical greens. The artwork should be presented separately in parts and should preferably be located in places like the underside of the flyover or standalone sculptures in appropriate locations which do not hinder the movement of the pedestrians or motorists.

b. As the stretch is a very long corridor, the Noise barrier provided would cover an extensive area and would impact the visual and urban aesthetics of the area. The details provided are inadequate i.e. dimensions, sections, specifications etc. are missing in the submission. The same must be supplemented to elucidate the scheme better.

c. Discrepancies have been observed, the details of the railing design do not match i.e. the drawings and the 3d views do not match. Also, the material used must be visually appealing and be low-maintenance as its use would be on a flyover which is a high-pollution zone, thus use of high-maintenance materials would not be feasible.

d. To ensure a holistic design approach, the appropriate location of bus stops with suitable Lay-bys areas shall be marked i.e. they shall be located at the start of the flyover in such a way that the flow of traffic is not disrupted and a seamless movement is ensured. Lay-bys areas (including the 2.70 KM stretch above) should be carefully planned and shown in the design to ensure an uninterrupted flow of traffic.

e. Universal accessibility shall be ensured at all the locations in the complete stretch of the proposal including pedestrian and cycling zones. Elements like table-tops for crossings, ramps etc. shall be appropriately used to ensure seamless movement for the users.

f. The Commission observed that in one of its replies the architect/proponent has stated that:

“………the project will be implemented on EPC mode and the details of murals, sculptures and materials will be finalised in the construction drawings. However, the schematic drawings and views for the same has been provided below..….”

4. The Commission observed that the items covered under EPC mode (like street furniture, cycle tracks, pedestrian areas, railing designs, noise barrier designs, signages, paintings on the walls, murals, landscaping details etc.) would have an impact on the overall visual, urban and environmental aesthetics of the area.  As the flyover spans a stretch of 2.7 KM, the Commission is of the strong opinion that the elements covered under EPC mode would be examined separately once the detailed EPC drawings are submitted for its consideration.

5. Taking into consideration the facts enumerated above, the Commission decided to give its acceptance to the proposal except for the items covered under EPC mode. The elements covered under EPC mode (like street furniture, cycle tracks, pedestrian areas, railing designs, noise barrier designs, signages, paintings on the walls, murals, landscaping details etc.) would be examined separately once the detailed EPC drawings are submitted for its consideration.