1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1670th meeting held on 22.09.2022 respectively was discussed.

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

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

3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect (online) to seek clarifications on several inadequacies noticed in the submission. Several attempts were made to connect him (online), but the architect could not connect.  Based on the inadequacies observed, in absence of the discussion (online) 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 and the 3D views of the proposed design scheme submitted lack clarity on elucidating the materiality especially railings on the balcony presented without vertical members. The same need to be reviewed, and corrected and the annotated 3D views must be submitted from various angles specifying the materials used on these elements for review by the Commission.

b. The entire proposal shall adhere to all the norms/regulations of the prevailing LBZ guidelines.

c. The plumbing mechanism is not self-explanatory including the rainwater pipes, it must be ensured that the same shall remain camouflaged appropriately and presented through plans/3D views etc.

d. Rooftop utilities are missing in the submission. Solar panels must be installed to the maximum to help reduce the carbon footprint, and the same must be as applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc. 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.

e. All water tanks, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of 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 fully comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory. In absence of sufficient information provided by the architect, 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 North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 11, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal 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-10082223053 dated 17.08.2022, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Screening done all around the Solar panels is not required, need to be removed to allow sun rays to the maximum.

b. 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.

c. All water tanks, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of 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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The building plan proposal received (online) was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held (online) with the architect on Cisco web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission related to an incomplete submission received for consideration and a presentation was made by the architect (online). Based on the discussion (online) held, the presentation made by the architect (online), and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. It was observed that the proposal is at the formal stage and incomplete submission has been received for consideration by the Commission. A lot of significant information related to the design proposal was found to be missing.

b. The Commission observed that the proposed design 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.

c. Also, a sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (including night views, to understand lighting mechanism, 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 design proposal in the actual context of the surroundings.

d. The design proposal has been submitted with provisions for a future expansion, considering a full basement for accommodating services, and car parking provisions of the overall proposal. The Commission opines that the architect to design and submit the complete proposal by utilising maximum development control regulations (DCR). Construction may be done at the site in phases to achieve better efficiency and FAR etc.

e. Discrepancies have been observed in the submission. The project report has indicated that:

“…..the built form is compact with rectangular block enclosing central courtyard for students interaction for proper cross ventilation and with partly one side open to meet clients highly technical education requitrements…..”

The Commission observed that the proposal is for an office building for South DMC but the references have been made, in the project report, related to the technical education department, the same need to be corrected and resubmitted.

A combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plan from outside be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site better. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement. Long-term/short-term parking for the visitors, staff, taxi drop-off points, parking spaces, holding areas etc. be indicated in the parking/ site plan.

f. Proper vehicle drop-off points are to be created in the complex and the same shall be marked clearly on the plans and presented through an appropriate medium (plans/elevations/3D views etc.).

g. The elevations and sections are missing in the submission. The project is submitted at the Formal stage and should submit detailed drawings of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) and elevations, clearly showing 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.

h. The design of the gate and 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.

i. Internal furniture arrangements for a typical floor must be submitted for understanding the functioning and efficiency of the design scheme better.

j. A signage policy should be adopted on the site to maintain uniformity. They need to be appropriately located to ensure that they do not mar the aesthetics of the façade.

k. Landscape details are incomplete for the proposal. They shall be submitted in the respective drawings and shall indicate the details of the trees planted, existing trees, levels, 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.

l. Work of Public 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 the outside, to be installed in terms of applicable rules/regulations/guidelines etc.

m. Provision for public toilets under Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) must be ensured in terms of applicable rules/regulations/norms/guidelines etc. and submitted with plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.

n. The area accommodating the DG set, AC plant etc. must be suitably screened, including DG exhaust pipes, using appropriate architectural mechanisms so as not to remain visible, and mar the aesthetics of the complex.

o. 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.

p. All water tanks, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of 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. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal could not be appreciated fully by the Commission.

4. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish 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 plan at its meeting held on September 02, 2015, and the building plan proposal for ‘New Girls hostel A Building (50-A)’ was approved in the meeting held on September 21, 2016.

3. The building plan proposal for NOC for completion (for ‘New Girls hostel A Building (50-A))’ received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in parts ‘B’ and ‘C’ of the Proforma. Based on the observations/recommendations received, and the submission made the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The proposal has been submitted at the completion stage but an appropriate number of photographs (including interior areas) of the actually built construction to substantiate the actual work executed at the site, has not been provided. Cropped photographs of the completion plan proposal have been submitted which do not indicate the required details. The proposal being at the Completion stage needs to provide uncut/clear photographs to substantiate the actual work executed at the site including parking, landscape, elevational façade, and screening of services etc.

b. From the photographs submitted it is evident that work on some of the portions of the building block including site development is still in progress. The proposal for NOC for completion must be submitted once all the work on the site is complete.

c. Also, approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall be superimposed on the plans/elevations/sections etc., over the 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, if any.

d. The car parking details under the drawing title ‘External Development Plan’ has indicated that:

“……....car parking shall be provided in double basement with two stacks parking of (BP5) as shown in layout= 228 nos…….…”

The Commission opines that the proposal is at the Completion stage, uncut photographs of the completed double stacks parking must be provided to substantiate its actual construction at the site for its consideration.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal could not be appreciated fully by the Commission.

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

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

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

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (part ground floor, first floor, second floor, and third floor) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The DG set and its exhaust pipes are appropriately screened.

b. The water tanks shown above the terrace 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, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of 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 layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 27, 1997, and no previous record of the completion taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of one bedroom, one toilet & balconies, an extension of drawing rooms, toilets, public toilet under Swachh Bharat Mission) received (online) at the formal stage were scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The architect has proposed double-stack parking arrangements to accommodate requisite parking requirements (existing + proposed). The architect must ensure its actual implementation at the site, the same would be checked at the time of the proposal received for NOC for Completion. All parking requirements must be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines.

b. The covering of balconies with temporary materials must to be removed.

c. The added balconies, rooms, toilet etc., structures shall be designed so 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.

d. 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.

e. All water tanks, plumbing pipes, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of 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 CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The building plan proposal for the pavilion, toilet block, and cafeteria received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. It was observed that the seating arrangements made appear to be unsymmetrical, the same need to be relooked at and seating arrangements be made uniform on either side leaving enough room for the movement of the spectators.  The planter in the midst of seating to be removed to provide greater seating and improve symmetry.

b.  All water tanks, plumbing pipes, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of 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 layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 31, 1996.

3. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on September 22, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. 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 along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the DUAC observation letter no: OL-14092222048 dated 27.09.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that unsatisfactory compliances to its earlier observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-14092222048 dated 27.09.2022 has been given.

b. The Commission has specifically requested for providing the details of fixing aluminium strips to screen the outdoor air conditioners including its fixing etc., but the same has not been resolved satisfactorily. The Screening proposed appears to be forced on top of the railing instead of integrated into the design appropriately so as not to mar the aesthetics of the area.

c. All temporary coverings/extensions must be removed.

d. All parking requirements must be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines.

e. 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. 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 plan proposal at its meeting held on December 12, 2018, and 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/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., NDMC in parts ‘B’ and ‘C’ of the Proforma and found acceptable.

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

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 February 19, 2020, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-12022023012 dated 24.02.2020. Based on the replies submitted, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. Signages provided in the CNG station must comply with the applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

b. Three options for public artwork were presented, the option no-1 was found to be accepted.

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, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of 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.

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

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 following observations are to be complied with:

a. Signages provided in the CNG station must comply with the applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

b. Three options for public artwork were presented, the option no-1 was found to be accepted.

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, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of 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.

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

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

2. The Commission approved the Master plan of the Gateway & Downtown District for DIAL at IGI Airport at its meeting held on March 16, 2021, specific observations are to be complied with, and approved the building plan proposal (for Asset LP-1B-01, Delhi Aerocity (Gateway District)) at its meeting held on January 06, 2022, specific observations were given. The Commission did not approve the revised building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 22, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal (for Asset LP-1B-01, Delhi Aerocity (Gateway District)) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-12092265006 dated 27.09.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the 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, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of 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.

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

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for the Hi-Tech IT School building (Phase-II) at the IIT Delhi campus, Hauz Khas at its meeting held on November 15, 2006. The Commission returned the proposal at the Completion stage due to incomplete submission vide DUAC letter no: 58(07)/2017-DUAC dated October 16, 2017.

3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the Completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in parts ‘B’ and ‘C’ of the Proforma. 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 insufficient photographs of the built construction have been submitted, moreover graphically modified photographs (3D views inserted along with the adjoining-built construction) have been used in the submission which is not appreciated by the Commission.

b. The proposal has been submitted at the completion stage, and 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 uncut/clear photographs from all sides to substantiate the actual work executed at the site including public interface areas, basement parking, landscape, elevational façade, screening of services etc.

c. In some of the photographs, water tanks are clearly visible on the terrace, the same needs to be screened appropriately so as not to mar the aesthetics.

d. Also, approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall be superimposed on the plans/elevations/sections etc., over the 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, if any.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal could not be appreciated fully by the Commission.

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

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

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

2. The Commission did not accept the proposal for NOC for completion at its meeting held on April 07, 2022, specific observations were given.
3. The building plan proposal for NOC received (online) at the Completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in parts ‘B’ and ‘C’ of the Proforma and the replies submitted in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-04042258006 dated 13.04.2022. Based on the observations/recommendations received, replies submitted, and the revised submission made, the proposal for NOC for Completion was found acceptable.

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

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 (3B+ G+6 floors) in its meeting held on November 22, 2007. Earlier, the submission made by the architect/proponent for additions/alterations, in the years 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 due to incompleteness.

3. The Commission did not approve the proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on August 11, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. The revised building plans proposal for additions/alterations (replacement of façade material on upper two floors from cement board to ACP in beige & grey colour, provision of a 2.0 m wide staircase up to third floor as per fire requirements, an additional area of 492.69 sqm on ground floor with terrace garden on first floor, provision of a public toilet under Swachh Bharat Mission) 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-05082256003 dated 17.08.2022, and a detailed discussion was held (online) with the proponent related to inconsistencies observed in the project report and the submission made. Based on the replies submitted, the discussion held (online), and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The architect in its project report has indicated that the upper two floors (seventh & eighth) have been constructed without any approval from the Statutory bodies, the same has also been verified by the proponent during discussion (online), which the Commission has taken note of.

b.  Some of the inconsistencies observed in the submission, project report indicated that the upper two floors (seventh & eighth) have already been constructed without any approval from the Statutory bodies, but the floor plans of the concerned floor have been denoted as ‘Proposed’, since these two floors have already been constructed, it was suggested to change the nomenclature harmonious with the project report.

c. Similarly, night-time views have been denoted under the head ‘Public Art’, the same need to be reviewed and corrected.

d. Since three levels of the basement are already existing, an appropriate number of photographs be submitted to understand its current car parking status.

e. Car parking must be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

f. The area accommodating the DG set, AC plant etc. must be suitably screened, including DG exhaust pipes, using appropriate architectural mechanisms so as not to remain visible, and mar the aesthetics of the complex.

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, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of 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. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal could not be appreciated fully by the Commission.

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

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