Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1660th meeting held on 21.07.2022.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1660th meeting held on 21.07.2022 was discussed.

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 June 29, 2016.

3. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., North DMC in part ‘C’ Performa. Based on the observations/recommendations received, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal is at the Completion stage and needs to provide an appropriate nos. of uncut/clear photographs (all sides) to substantiate the actual work executed at the site including a basement and other interior areas (common public areas, restaurants, food courts, auditorium, public sitting areas), rooftop utilities, DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc. to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings.

b. The proposal being at the Completion stage needs to provide an actual Artwork executed at the site. The same is missing. Public art of suitable scale to the context, which is also visible from outside the site, is to be installed.

c. Approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall 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 concerning the sanctioned plan.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission related to building construction at the site, the proposal for NOC for the 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 site including the basement and other interior areas (common public areas, restaurants, food courts, auditorium, public sitting areas), rooftop utilities, DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc.

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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on December 18, 1992, and specific observations were given.

3. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., SDMC in part ‘C’ Performa. Based on the observations/recommendations received, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. Scanned photographs from some reports used in the submission which do not clearly show the existing actual condition of the site. The Commission observed that the proposal is at the Completion stage and needs to provide an appropriate nos. of updated uncut/clear photographs (from all sides) to get clarity of the site and to substantiate the actual work executed at the site.

b. Approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall 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 concerning the sanctioned plan.

c. Parking plan, landscape plan was found to be missing in the submission. The same shall be submitted along with the superimposed plan.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission related to building construction at the site, the proposal for NOC for the completion plan could not be appreciated 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 North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on June 23, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (additions/alterations on the ground floor, and new proposal for first to the third floor) 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-22062223037 dated 29.06.2022. 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 did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on July 14, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-14072223044, 23(44)/2022-DUAC dated 20.07.2022. 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 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) 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 did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on June 30, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The building plans proposal 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-22062261012 dated 06.07.2022, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex Meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission related to inconsistencies found in the formal submission. Based on the replies submitted, a discussion held, and revised submissions 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-22062261012 dated 06.07.2022 inadequate compliance for this has been given.

b. It is again reiterated that the site appears to be vehicle oriented rather than pedestrian (students) friendly. The vehicular entry is creating conflict with the pedestrian (students) movement. Also, a lot of surfaces have been occupied by vehicular parking, and need to be relooked along with the alternative arrangements including the provision of a basement. The freed-up spaces can be utilised suitably.

c. The pickup & drop-off points of the school buses have not been clearly understood. The bus parking shown outside the school boundary on the municipal road is not accepted by the Commission. Bus parking areas after drop-off must be indicated in the site plan.

d. A lot of discrepancies have been observed in the drawings of a proposal which is at the formal stage, 3D views and the section submitted do not correlate with the plans submitted. All drawings must be corrected and the coordinated drawings including plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc. must be submitted for judicious examination & consideration.

e. The Commission observed that the building plan proposal is at the formal stage and the architect has submitted only one section which does not correlate with the plans and is not appreciated. 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. with skin sections (in detail).

f. Location of the proposed public toilet (under SBM) has been indicated in the layout plan but their detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have not been submitted. The Commission observed that the submission is at formal stage and these components have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex. The same is to be revised appropriately and incorporated for review by the Commission.

g. It is understood that most of the classrooms may not be air-conditioned but can preplan for potential additions in future including the administrative areas, principal rooms etc. which could be using separate air-conditioning units. 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. A scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material of screening for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views.

h. Roof-top utilities require to be shown on the relevant drawings. A lot of spaces are available on the terraces which can be utilised for the installation of the Solar panels and help reduce the carbon footprint. 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) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

i. All plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioning units, 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.

4. Overall, the details are not sufficiently provided for a proposal at the formal stage. The proposal needs to be detailed and comprehensive.

5. Considering the facts enumerated above, the architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of 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 February 27, 1998. No previous record of NOC for completion has been found in the available record of the Commission.

3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on July 14, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations (extension of balconies, kitchen, the proposal for bedroom, toilet etc.) 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-06072222036 dated 20.07.2022, 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 submissions made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The outer façade of the first two lower floors has exposed Dholpur stone tiles which were not reflected in the 3D views submitted. The Commission has suggested retaining the same to ensure harmony between the existing and the proposed façade.

b. Further, the architect has informed that they are making provisions for replacing old railings with a new glass railing in the whole society to maintain harmony between existing & the proposed additions.

c. The covering of balconies with temporary materials needed to be removed.

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

e. The added balcony 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 strongly to the building and does not impact the safety of the superstructure while addition/alteration.

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

g. 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.

h. 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) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on July 14, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The building plans proposal for demolition & reconstruction 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-12072224024 dated 20.07.2022. Based on the comments received from the concerned local body (NDMC), replies submitted and the submissions made, the following observations are to be complied with:

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

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

c. 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.

d. 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) 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 at its meeting held on December 12, 2018.

3. The Commission accepted the revised concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 25, 2021, and specific observations were given.

4. The building plans proposal 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-22062127046 dated 29.06.2021 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. Double Stack parking provisions have been shown in the basements to achieve requisite parking requirements. The architect/proponent must ensure its actual execution at the site and the same shall be examined at the time of receiving the proposal at the completion stage.

b. The design of the gate and the boundary wall could have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex, the same needs to be detailed for gate/grill detail/material applications coordinated with plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.

c. Inconsistency observed in the submission location of DG Set, transformers etc. have been wrongly indicated on the terrace, the architect has assured to correct it.

d. The 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. The covering detail for the ramp is to be designed and submitted at this stage, keeping in mind the aesthetics of the complex i.e., Design, form, material etc. used for covering the ramps.

e. 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.

f. All water tanks, 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.

5. Overall, the details are not sufficiently provided for a proposal at the formal stage. The proposal needs to be detailed and comprehensive.

6. Considering the facts enumerated above, the architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

2. Earlier, the building plans of the proposal were approved by the Commission at its meeting held on January 20, 2005, and approved the proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on October 16, 2019, specific observations were given.

3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for completion at its meeting held on July 14, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., DDA in part ‘C’ Performa. Based on the observations/recommendations received, and the submission made, the proposal for NOC for completion was found acceptable.

Feasibility study for the elevated corridor between INA to airport integrating GPRA colonies. (Conceptual Stage)

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

2. The proposal was deferred on the request of the Architect vide his email dated August 04, 2022.

Proposal in respect of New Flyover at Savitri Cinema Intersection. (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 design proposal for Integrated transit corridor development & street network connectivity plan in respect of the provision of a Grade separator at Sarai Kale Khan along the ring road, signal-free movement between Modi Mill ROB and Nehru Place, and provision of Grade separator at Savitri Cinema along Outer Ring Road at its meeting held on June 03, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The design proposal in respect of the New Flyover at Savitri Cinema Intersection received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-24052127037 dated 09.06.2021 and a detailed discussion was also held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the observations of the Commission. Based on the replies submitted, the discussion held and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission opines that the proposals of this scale cannot be studied in isolation i.e., it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities. The 3D views shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings, for a better understanding of the proposal in the existing environment to make it clearer.

b. A comprehensive landscape plan including the area on elevated roads etc. including the area below elevated roads for the complete scheme is not understood especially since the grass cannot grow in these areas, and needs to be worked out comprehensively.

c. More detailed sections shall be cut at a pedestrian level to understand activity integration with surrounding land uses. An appropriate number of sections (longitudinal and cross-sections) along with the actual elevational heights of the surrounding development etc. be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme in the actual environment.

d. Considering this area is likely to be used by a large number of residents living in the nearby area, considerations of the pedestrian facilities including integration & connections with metro stations, bus stops, street furniture etc. to be shown comprehensively in the submission.

e. The abundance of spaces is available under the flyover. It is to be ensured that they do not become dumping grounds or be encroached on so as not to spoil the overall urban and visual aesthetics of the area.

f. Details of various street elements like Light poles, railings, crash guards, noise cutters, signage for wayfinding, pedestrian facilities, cyclist facilities and appropriate provisions for rainwater harvesting etc. should also be a part of the detailed submission for consideration. Rainwater pipes etc. shall ensure to be screened.

4. In view of the above and taking into consideration the overall urban aesthetic, visual quality, scale, proportions, and size of the proposal, it is suggested to make a detailed presentation before the Commission after adhering to all the observations, along with a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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 21, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of balconies, room) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-14072255043 dated 26.07.2022 and 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-14072255043 dated 26.07.2022 inadequate compliance for this has been given. It needs to be resolved completely.

b. The Commission observed that the proposal is for (the addition of balconies, room) and it is rejected on five previous occasions by the Commission (meetings dated 15.03.2022, 07.04.2022, 26.05.2022,07.07.2022, and 21.07.2022 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. The design scheme presented to screen the air-conditioners, rainwater pipes from the balcony etc. are not appreciated by the Commission, the same needs to be revised taking into consideration the overall aesthetics of the area.

d. All temporary coverings/extensions must be removed.

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

f. 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.