Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1658th meeting held on 07.07.2022.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1658th meeting held on 07.07.2022 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 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.

3. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of balconies, room) at its meeting held on July 07, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-01072255039 dated 08.07.2022. Based on the previous observations of the Commission 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-01072255039 dated 08.07.2022 inadequate compliance for this has been given. It needs to be resolved completely.

b) The Commission observed that the proposal is for (addition of balconies, room) and it is rejected on four previous occasions by the Commission (meetings dated 15.03.2022, 07.04.2022, 26.05.2022 and 07.07.2022 respectively) on some very basic observations given in a detailed manner in the observation’s letters issued by the DUAC. But the architect has been unsuccessful in complying with these observations satisfactorily.

c) Also, the submission is not self-explanatory making it difficult to comprehend. The 3d views give the impression of a new design scheme. The additions/alterations must be shown to distinguish between the existing and proposed scheme.

d) The design scheme presented to screen the air-conditioners is not appreciated by the Commission, the same needs to be revised taking into consideration the overall aesthetics of the area.

e) The proposed toilet under Swachh Bharat Mission is not reflected in the 3D views submitted, the 3D views must be corrected and incorporated with the proposed design scheme for the toilet with a screening mechanism.

f) All temporary coverings/extensions must be removed.

g) All parking requirements must be as per appliable norms/regulations/guidelines.

h) 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.

5. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., the compliances with the previous observations of the Commission are not resolved sufficiently.

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

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal (3B + G + 5 floors) at its meeting held on November 22, 2007. Earlier, the incomplete submission made by the architect/proponent for additions/alterations, in the year 2010 (3B + G + 7 floors) & 2014 (3B + G + 8 floors), was returned vide DUAC letter no: 22(16)/2010-DUAC dated March 09, 2010 and 22(23)/2014-DUAC dated December 01, 2014 respectively.

3. The Commission did not accept the concept of additions/alterations at its meeting held on October 14, 2021, specific observations were given.

4. The building plans proposal for revised sanctions & additions/alterations (for a building which has already been constructed at the site) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with all the previous data available in the Commission including previous approval given in the year 2007, the proposal for additions/alterations returned due to incomplete submission in the year 2010 & 2014. The Commission intended to discuss the matter (online) with the concerned architect but he was not available. Considering the gravity of the situation the Commission discussed (online) the matter with the Owner who provided the clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion (online) held with the Owner, previous data available in the Commission and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The title and the subject of the proposal received at the formal stage are incorrect. The title of the subject has been given as under:

“……… SHAHDRA CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT……”

However, the proposal under consideration is in respect of a “Hotel at Plot no-11, CBD (East), Shahdra” (taken from the earlier reference received in the year 2007).  Accordingly, the title of the proposal needs to be corrected.

b) During the discussion, the owner revealed that he has purchased the property under consideration in Auction and later found out that the two floors (seventh & the eighth floor) had been constructed without obtaining approval from DUAC. Data available in the Commission and some of the actual site photographs provided by the architect also substantiated these facts.

c. The proposal is at the formal stage, and it was disappointing to observe that the architect has provided an ambiguous project report and concealed the important facts related to the proposal which could otherwise have assisted the Commission in understanding the overall proposal better.  

d. Considering all the facts enumerated above, it was, accordingly, suggested to the architect/proponent to correct all the facts related to the proposal including amending all the drawings (as per prevailing building UBBL provisions/norms/regulations/guidelines)/ project reports/other relevant information (providing extensive photographs of the built construction including basements, terrace, lobby areas, internal areas etc.)/any other information, if any and resubmit it to the concerned local authority for taking appropriate action under applicable norms/regulations required for such proposals.

5. Overall, insufficient information related to a proposal of this scale has been provided due to which it could not be examined judiciously by the Commission.

6. Considering the facts enumerated above, the architect is advised to furnish all the details related to previous sanction/NOC for completion by the local authorities, if any, and any other information deemed fit, along with a pointwise incorporation/reply of the observations given above by the Commission.

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 Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on June 16, 2022, 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 in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL- 14062223035 dated 21.06.2022. 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) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

b) All service equipment, solar panels, outdoor air conditioner units, 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.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 31, 2018.

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) In the first instance, the Commission appreciated the overall quality of the construction and observed that while approving the case (formal stage) the following observations were given:

“……..The proposal forwarded by the North DMC online was found acceptable with the following observations :-

1. The solar panel frame should properly join with the building block.

2. Zoning of public art to be indicated.

3. As is mandatory as per Unified Building Bye-laws-2017 for Delhi, the provisions of public toilets be made in the proposal.

4. No service equipment should be visible at terrace for which proper screening need to be done……………”

The Commission observed that the proposal for NOC for completion and observation given at the time of formal approval has not complied.

b) The Commission has taken note of the reply submitted by the architect for not providing ‘Solar Panel Frame’ but did not accept it and observed that all the observations of the Commission communicated while approving the case at the formal stage vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-17011823093 dated 06.02.2018 must be complied before submitting the proposal for NOC for completion.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal for NOC for the completion plan could not be appreciated by the Commission.

5. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply to the observations given above by the Commission.

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

2. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

b) All service equipment, solar panels, outdoor air conditioner units, 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.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 31, 1996.

3. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations (extension of 3 balconies & construction of a toilet in type-A & type-A1 units, and extension of 2 balconies & construction of a toilet in type-B units) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for additions/alterations but the design scheme is not self-explanatory making it difficult to comprehend the proposal judiciously. The 3d views give the impression of a new design scheme. The additions/alterations must be shown in a manner to distinguish between the existing and proposed scheme.

b) The design scheme presented to screen the air-conditioners is not appreciated by the Commission, the same needs to be revised taking into consideration the overall aesthetics of the area.

c) All rainwater pipes from the proposed balconies are screened appropriately so as not to spoil the visual, urban aesthetics of the area. A design scheme should be submitted for its review by the Commission.

d) The proposed toilet under Swachh Bharat Mission is not reflected in the 3D views submitted, the 3D views must be corrected and incorporated with the proposed design scheme for the toilet with a screening mechanism.

e) 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 that it is braced firmly to the building and does not impact the safety of the superstructure.

f) All parking requirements must be as per appliable norms/regulations/guidelines.

g) All existing temporary coverings/extensions visible in the photographs must be removed.

h) 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.

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

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 DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 23, 2015, and did not accept the proposal for NOC for completion at its meeting held on July 07, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-29062248005 dated 08.07.2021 and found acceptable.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 20, 1985, and the NOC for the completion plan proposal was accepted in the meeting held on November 10, 2008.

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (extension of Bedroom, Toilet and balcony) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for additions/alterations at the formal stage but, the design scheme presented is not self-explanatory making it difficult to comprehend. The 3d views give the impression of a new design scheme. The additions/alterations must be shown to distinguish between the existing and proposed design scheme.

b) Existing photographs indicate the outdoor air-conditioners all over the façade. It was suggested to prepare a scheme to make provisions for screening of the outdoor air conditioners for additions/alterations so as not to mar the aesthetics of the area.

c) The plumbing arrangements of the proposed toilets are not understood, exposed plumbing pipes would spoil the visual and the aesthetics of the area, a design scheme should be presented with an appropriate arrangement of their screening mechanisms.

d) Similarly, balconies have been proposed without indicating the provisions for rainwater pipes (RWP). The Commission observed that the exposed RWP from the balconies could spoil the overall visual and aesthetics of the area. A design scheme with a screening mechanism should be submitted for its review by the Commission.

e) 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 that it is braced firmly to the building and does not impact the safety of the superstructure.

f) All parking requirements must be as per appliable norms/regulations/guidelines.

g) All existing temporary coverings/extensions visible in the photographs must be removed.

h) 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.

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

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

Revised Layout and Building Plans for addition/alteration in respect of Farmer’s CGHS Society at Plot No. 08, Sector-13 Rohini. (Conceptual stage)

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on February 02, 2001. No record of the NOC for Completion taken was found in the available record of the Commission. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on March 10, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (Extension of kitchen and balcony) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-03032223010 dated 16.03.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was disappointing to observe that this submission has fudged, graphically modified photographs and distorted data related to the proposal, which exaggerated the actual site conditions. 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 the architect not to submit misleading submissions in future, otherwise, his/her fraudulent actions would be reported to the concerned authorities for taking appropriate action.

b) In view of the fudged submission, the Commission did not examine the untruthful submission submitted and decided to return it without its consideration.

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