Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1673rd meeting held on 13.10.2022 respectively.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1673rd meeting held on 13.10.2022 respectively was discussed.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout plan for National Centre for Disease Control at its meeting held on October 12, 2011, and the building plans were approved in the meeting held on November 27, 2012, and specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal for NOC for Completion (for PG Hostel Block) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., North DMC in parts ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the observations/recommendation received, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The proposal has been submitted for NOC for Completion, but with incomplete documentation. The site plan, parking plan, landscape plan, sections etc. have been found missing in the submission. Only two photographs of the built construction have been provided.   An appropriate number of photographs of the completed superstructure (for which NOC for completion is required) must be provided with appropriate labelling/delineation and uncut/clear photographs, including night-time photographs of the facade from all sides to substantiate the actual work executed at the site including basement, parking, landscape, elevational façade, and screening of services etc.

b. Also, the plot for PG Hostel Block be highlighted appropriately in the overall master plan/layout plan of the complex for a better understanding of the proposal.  

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. Parking provisions are to be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

e. For a better understanding of the proposal side by side photographs ‘Before (submitted at the time of DUAC formal approval) and After (current actual built construction)’ of the constructed building blocks be provided.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal for NOC for the completion plan 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 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 Commission approved the layout plan for National Centre for Disease Control at its meeting held on October 12, 2011, and the building plans were approved in the meeting held on November 27, 2012, specific were observations given.

3. The building plan proposal for NOC for Completion (for Type-IV & Director’s Bungalow Block) 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 ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma.  Based on the observations/recommendation received, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The proposal has been submitted for NOC for Completion, but with incomplete documentation. The site plan, parking plan, landscape plan etc. have been found missing in the submission. Only two photographs of the built construction have been provided. An appropriate number of photographs of the completed superstructure (for which NOC for completion is required) must be provided with appropriate labelling/delineation and uncut/clear photographs, including night-time photographs of the facade from all sides to substantiate the actual work executed at the site including basement, parking, landscape, elevational façade, and screening of services etc.

b. Also, the plot for Type-IV & Director’s Bungalow Block be highlighted appropriately in the overall master plan/layout plan of the complex for a better understanding of the proposal.

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. Parking provisions are to be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

e. For a better understanding of the proposal side by side photographs ‘Before (submitted at the time of DUAC formal approval) and After (current actual built construction)’ of the constructed building blocks be provided.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal for NOC for the completion plan 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 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 Commission approved the layout plan for National Centre for Disease Control at its meeting held on October 12, 2011, and the building plans were approved in the meeting held on November 27, 2012, and specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal for NOC for Completion (for Wet Lab/Services Block/Waste Management) 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 ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the observations/recommendation received, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The proposal has been submitted for NOC for Completion, but with incomplete documentation. The site plan, parking plan, landscape plan etc. have been found missing in the submission. Only two photographs of the built construction have been provided. An appropriate number of photographs of the completed superstructure (for which NOC for completion is required) must be provided with appropriate labelling/delineation and uncut/clear photographs, including night-time photographs of the facade from all sides to substantiate the actual work executed at the site including basement, parking, landscape, elevational façade, and screening of services etc.

b. Also, the plot for Wet Lab/Services Block/Waste Management be highlighted appropriately in the overall master plan/layout plan of the complex for a better understanding of the proposal.

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. Parking provisions are to be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

e. For a better understanding of the proposal side by side photographs ‘Before (submitted at the time of DUAC formal approval) and After (current actual built construction)’ of the constructed building blocks be provided.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal for NOC for the completion plan 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 to the observations given above by the Commission.

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

2. The Commission approved that building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 17, 2018, and the revised building plan proposal was approved in the meeting held on April 05, 2018, and January 06, 2022, respectively, 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., South DMC in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the observations/recommendation received, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The proposal has been submitted for NOC for Completion. An appropriate number of photographs of the completed superstructure (for which NOC for completion is required) must be provided with proper labelling/delineation and uncut/clear photographs, including night-time photographs of the facade from all sides to substantiate the actual work executed at the site including boundary wall, gate, open parking areas, landscape, elevational façade, and screening of services etc.

b. From the photographs submitted by the architect it was observed that the work on site is still in progress. Glass panes on some of the windows are missing, some balconies have a railing and some don’t. Some areas do not have proper flooring. Areas near the fountain are not cleaned etc. Pergolas planned at the time of formal approval have not been constructed. Also, pre-existing toilet at site needs its external façade improved and the large hoarding over the toilet facility should be better integrated/camouflaged (please provide intentions as concept) or removed. The Commission opines that the proposal for NOC for completion must be submitted for its consideration once all works on the site are complete including civil, landscape etc.

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. Parking provisions are to be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

e. For a better understanding of the proposal side by side photographs ‘Before (submitted at the time of DUAC formal approval) and After (current actual built construction)’ of the constructed building blocks be provided.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal for NOC for the completion plan 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 to the observations given above by the Commission.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 18, 2020, 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., South DMC in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the observations/recommendation received, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. It was observed from the photographs provided by the architect and formal approval given, that a porta cabin structure (for pollution checks) has been erected unauthorisedly in the complex, and needs to be removed. The Commission observed that later unauthorised additions like porta cabins etc. (for pollution checks etc.) erected by the petrol pump owner have an overall bearing on the urban, visual, environmental and aesthetic quality of the complex/area. These later additions should have been suitably addressed/accommodated while designing the scheme at the formal stage, so as not to mar the aesthetics later.

b. A work of Art (duly approved by the Commission in formal approval) is missing in the submission. The proposal being at the Completion stage needs to provide  actual Artwork executed at the site in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

c. For a better understanding of the proposal side by side photographs ‘Before (submitted at the time of DUAC formal approval) and After (current actual built construction)’ of the constructed building blocks be provided.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal for NOC for the completion plan 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 to the observations given above by the Commission.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal (forwarded by the North DMC) at its meeting held on June 25, 2021, and specific observations were given.

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

a. In his report, the architect has submitted that:

“……Reason for Revision: The previous proposal was uploaded on MCD portal whereas the area falls under the jurisdiction of Building Section DDA….”

b. All waste generated on the site including bio, surgical instruments etc., shall be disposed of in an environment-friendly manner as per applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

c. Green areas on the site and the requisite parking requirements for the site shall be as per applicable norms/guidelines/ regulations etc.

d. Double Stack parking arrangements have been shown in the basements to achieve the 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.

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, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes 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 plans proposal (Main block: two    Basements + Ground + 9 floors) at its meeting held on October 14, 2009, and     subsequently accepted the NOC for completion at its meeting held on July 26, 2012, specific observations were given.

3. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of Oncology Block: 2 Basements + Ground + 12 floors) at its meeting held on December 16, 2015, and accepted the NOC for completion (addition of Oncology Block: 2 Basements + Ground floor) at its meeting held on April 18, 2018, specific observations were given. 

4. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations in the Oncology Block (addition of first to eleventh floors over an existing ground floor & two basements) at its meeting held on September 22, 2022, specific observations were given.

5. The revised building plans proposal for additions/alterations in Oncology Block (addition of first to eleventh floors over an existing ground floor & two basements) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-09092222047 dated 27.09.2022, and a detailed discussion (online) was held with the architect who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the replies submitted, discussion (online) held, 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-09092222047 dated 27.09.2022 has been given.

b. The Commission observed that the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of Oncology Block: 2 Basements + Ground + 12 floors) was approved at its meeting held on December 16, 2015, and the NOC for completion (part: for 2 Basements + Ground floor) was accepted at its meeting held on April 18, 2018. But, the reasons for its resubmission are not provided clearly, and the same need to be elucidated appropriately.

c. The Commission took note that the superstructure (Oncology block) for which the proposal has been submitted for additions/alterations has already been mostly constructed at the site roughly as per original approval.

d. Inconsistencies have been observed in the submission, though the proposal for 2 Basements + Ground floor had already been constructed at the site & NOC for completion issued, the revised proposal submitted for additions/alterations (Oncology Block) consists of three basements, which needs clarification in the drawings and/or be clearly and consistently communicated.

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 (for Oncology Block) only.

f. From the actual site photographs presented before the Commission, it was observed that the whole site is overflowing with parking of vehicles including two-wheeler to the extent that a row of cars is even parked on the basement ramps meant for ingress and outgress of vehicles. The Commission observed when the under-construction Oncology block would start functioning, the car parking situation would become even more challenging and create grave difficulties on the site.

g. To mitigate these challenges in future, it was suggested to prepare and present three to four alternative parking possibilities accommodating current and future parking requirements of the site including two-wheeler parking (which have been seen parked in large numbers on the site) for examination of the Commission.

h. Further, double and four-stack parking arrangements have been proposed on the periphery of the hospital boundary, but the 3D views do not fully reflect the proposal and actual condition of the site. It was, accordingly, suggested to superimpose all these stacks (double & four) parking arrangements on the actual site including building blocks (existing & proposed), road network, all existing services etc. and presented with uncut photographs from all sides for a better understanding & examination of the proposal in a judicious manner.  A vehicular and pedestrian circulation plan should also be presented.

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

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 04, 2019, 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 part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the observations/recommendation received, and the submission made, the building plan proposal for NOC for completion is accepted.

Building plans proposal in respect of Motel building at Khasra no. 30/17, 30/24, 39/4/1/2 at Village Samalkha. (Conceptual Stage)

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

2. No previous record of the approval taken from the Commission has been found in the available record of the Commission. Considering some of the already-built construction at the site, the current proposal appears to be for demolition & reconstruction.

3. The building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal is at the conceptual stage, overall quality of the submission is very poor i.e., the quality of submitted drawings including 3D views is disappointing and found to be not comprehensible which is not appreciated by the Commission.

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 (with enhanced visuals & better visuals angles) 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. The scale, proportion, materials etc. on the façade is not understood sufficiently. 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. Very elementary/vague elevations have been provided. The entire elevations are suggested to be relooked, redesigned, and sufficiently detailed, which shall also protect from harsh weather conditions (rain & sun, etc.), with better architectural vocabulary, material, form, and proportions, and to enhance the aesthetics of the building and its façade. The glass proposed all over the façade needs to be reconsidered contextual to the surroundings and climatical conditions of the site. The southwest façade would be most prone to heat gain and thus shall be carefully treated for effectively reducing heat loads.  Again, the Commission is not opposed to floor to ceiling glass with full view outwards but does require more thoughtful treating of façade to mitigate other effects and improve external aesthetics.

e. Inappropriate very sketchy sections have been provided. An appropriate number of sections through end to end of the proposed scheme (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. elucidating the design scheme better. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with the application of the materials.

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. Parking arrangements made in the basement are not understood, large spans have been provided without structural arrangements, which appears to be unworkable. It needs to be clearly indicated in appropriate plans with other parking details including the location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

h. The site has various usages including commercial and motel, a combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plans from outside to the various parts of the buildings with the segregation of the two is to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site.

i. A large kitchen has been shown without internal arrangements, servicing etc. A plan needs to be provided which shows the servicing of the kitchen, including loading/unloading, and storage of raw materials along with a solid waste management plan to show effective means of waste disposal.

j. The air conditioning mechanism is not clear, the same shall be detailed with the location and screening mechanism for better understanding.

k. 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.

l. A detailed furniture layout shall be provided for a better understanding & overall functioning of the proposed design scheme judiciously.

m. 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 submitted with plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc. for the review of the Commission.

n. The elements of sustainability are missing in the proposed design scheme. These shall be identified and marked on the plans with appropriate details.  The screening mechanism of the same shall also be indicated with material specifications and marked clearly in appropriate plans/3D views 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.

o. 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.

p. 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.

q. 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.

 r. The location of the DG set, DG exhaust pipes, AC plant etc. must be indicated on the plans and scheme for their screening using appropriate architectural mechanisms so as not to remain visible, and mar the aesthetics of the complex shall be submitted.

4. Overall Commission observed that a very elementary design scheme has been submitted by the architect/proponent which is not appreciated by the Commission. The design scheme shall be self-explanatory and comprehensive for the Commission to examine and offer comments judiciously. Due to a lack of clarity, the proposal is not appreciated completely by the Commission.

5. The architect was advised to adhere to all the above observations, given by the Commission, revise the design with a fresh approach complying with all the above observations, and furnish a pointwise reply. 

Building plans proposal in respect of Scouts & their training & Cultural Centre at 3/7, Jogabai, Near Escort Hospital. (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 building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 25, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-23082255050 dated 02.09.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the submission made the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that considering the potential future requirements of the proposal, provisions for VRV systems have been made on the terrace but their details including installations, functioning, screening mechanism etc. have not been provided. The same must ensure to be provided in the next submission (formal submission) including the location & screening mechanism of DG set & DG exhaust pipes etc.

b. Double Stack parking arrangements have been shown in the basements to achieve the 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 formal & completion stage.

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, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes 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. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission in the next submission (formal stage) and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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.

Proposal in respect of Master Plan for Redevelopment of New Delhi Railway Station. 

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

2. The Commission accepted the conceptual proposal for the Master Plan for Redevelopment of New Delhi Railway Station and its surrounding areas at its meeting held on November 03, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The proposal for the Master Plan for Redevelopment of New Delhi Railway Station received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observation of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-29102127074 dated 11.11.2021. Based on the previous observations given and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that while accepting the concept of the Master Plan for Redevelopment of New Delhi Railway Station, detailed very specific observations were given along with the following comments:

“…….the architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission including earlier observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-26102127072 dated 02.11.2021 in the subsequent submission (formal submission) with its pointwise incorporation/reply…..”

But the pointwise reply & compliances to its earlier observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-26102127072 dated 02.11.2021, & OL-29102127074 dated 11.11.2021 respectively are found to be missing in the submission (formal), and insufficient information (drawings/documentation etc.)  has been provided.

b. In absence of sufficient information provided by the architect/proponent, the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission and commented upon.

4. The architect is again advised to adhere to all the observations given by the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-26102127072 dated 02.11.2021 & OL-29102127074 dated 11.11.2021 respectively and submit a complete submission (with complete drawings/documentation etc.) along with due certification & authentication from the nodal officer, RLDA regarding adherence & applicability of the relevant Master Plan, Zonal plan & building bye-laws,  and pointwise incorporation & reply for consideration of the Commission.