Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1674th meeting held on 20.10.2022 respectively.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1674th meeting held on 20.10.2022 respectively 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 October 17, 2018, and specific observations were given.
3. The building plan proposal for NOC for completion (Part- Admin building, academic building, tradesman shop, visitor block, quarter guard, and barracks) 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 submission made the following observation is to be complied with:

a) From the actual building photographs provided by the architect/proponent, the marks of water seepage are visible on the façade & at the DPC level (especially on the tradesman shop & quarter guard area) which may have occurred due to inappropriate slope, coping treatment of the horizontal surfaces. The same is suggested to be rectified for the longevity of the built structure.

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 February 19, 2021, 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 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) From the actual site photographs provided by the architect/proponent, it was observed that work on the facade is still not finished. Exposed brickwork and the structural steel bars are visible, which is marring & spoiling the visual and urban aesthetics of the area and not appreciated by the Commission. The proposal for completion should be sent only after the completion of all the works at the site including civil, landscape etc.

b) 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.

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

d) 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 building plan 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 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 Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on October 06, 2022, specific observations were given.
3. No previous record of approval (formal/completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.
4. The building plan proposal 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-29092255059 dated 10.10.2022. The Commission intended to discuss (online) the proposal with the architect but he was not available. Based on the replies submitted, the unavailability (online) of the architect, and the revised 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-29092255059 dated 10.10.2022 has been given to the extent that the main gate of the property has been shown as non-openable/operational. The Commission opines that since the proposal is at the formal stage corrected, the coordinated submission should be made for the consideration of the Commission.

b) The available roof surface shall also be utilised for the installation of solar panels and help reduce carbon footprint. 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.

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 layout and the building plan proposal for plots no-A, C, and D at its meeting held on March 18, 2020, and specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for completion (part- for plot A) at its meeting held on September 29, 2022, and October 13, 2022, respectively, specific observations were given.
4. The revised proposal for NOC for completion (part-for plot A) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-09102248012 dated 18.10.2022 and comments given by the concerned local body i.e., DDA. Based on the replies submitted, comments received from the local body and revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed that in terms of previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-09102248012 dated 18.10.2022 unsatisfactory replies have been given.

b) In compliance with one of the previous observations of the Commission, the architect/proponent has submitted some actual videos of the site with the movement of the vehicles for elucidating the movement pattern within the site. But the Commission is not convinced by the replies submitted. The Commission also took note that the facade of the property has been altered completely, in terms of material, architectural features & elements etc. without taking its prior approvals (formal).

c) Further, the Commission also took note that while approving the case at the formal stage provision of a basement with mechanical parking arrangements has been provided to accommodate the requisite parking requirements, which has not been constructed at the site. Considering the parking situation at the site shown in the videos submitted, which seems to be unsatisfactory, the Commission emphasises that the same (basement with mechanical parking) should be constructed at the site as per approval (formal) given by the Commission only then the proposal for NOC for completion be submitted for consideration of the Commission.

5. Because of the unsatisfactory replies to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letters no:  OL-16092248011 dated 03.10.2022 and OL-09102248012 dated 18.10.2022 respectively, the proposal is not appreciated by the Commission.
6. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and submit the proposal for NOC for completion once the basement with mechanical parking is constructed at the site (as per formal approval by the Commission) and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout plan of the Mangalam Place District Centre at its meeting held on October 31, 2001.
3. The building plan proposal in respect of the Commercial Complex received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal is part of the District Centre and opines that the same 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.

b) It was observed that long shots of the 3D views have been provided which do not clearly indicate the required details. Since the proposal is at the formal stage all four sides of the proposed structure should be elucidated with a sufficient number of self-explanatory annotated 3D views (including public interface areas like food court areas, cinema foyer, escalator areas, drop-off points, double-height terraces, night views (to understand lighting mechanism), and birds' eye views etc.) from various better viewing angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations & materials used for a better understanding of the design proposal.

c) It was observed that the architect has availed the provision for the reduction of parking areas on account of proximity to the metro areas (as per applicable dynamic parking norms), but the distances to the nearest metro station have not been indicated, the same shall be provided under its applicability appropriately.

d) Considering the building's use as Commercial with provisions for restaurants, cinema etc., for the public, detailed parking provisions for the project shall be elucidated to understand the overall (current and futuristic) parking requirements. Parking provisions are to be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

e) Sections provided must be detailed and better coordinated with plans to the extent that architectural elements, materials applications proposed on the façade be reflected showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc.

f) Innovative hoarding for the cinema posters and façade signage shall be explored to appeal aesthetically.

g) Plumbing mechanism (including DG exhaust pipes) be appropriately elucidated as some of the toilets do not have provision for shafts. Exposed DG exhaust pipes, plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes etc. spoil and mar the aesthetics of the site and surroundings, a design to screen them with appropriate materials be submitted for the review of the Commission.

h) Installation of solar panels on the rooftop to be maximised. The complex should aim to maximise energy efficiency and set an example for such future proposals. 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 water tanks, plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, 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 Commission observed that additional information as indicated above is required for it to examine and offer comments judiciously.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations, given by the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

Building plan proposal in respect of Motel building on Khasra no. 417/1 min, 421 min, 422 min, 423 min and 424 min at Village Ghitorni. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of the approvals (formal) or the NOC taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.  The Commission accepted the concept of the building plan proposal (3 basements+G+7 floors) at its meeting held on February 26, 2020, and specific observations were given.
3. The building plan proposal (2 basements+Ground+10 floors) for demolition and reconstructions received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-12022027018 dated 05.03.2020. Based on the previous observations, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the 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.

b) It was observed that long shots of the 3D views have been provided which do not clearly indicate the required details. All four sides of the design proposal should be elucidated with a sufficient number of self-explanatory annotated 3D views (including the porch, drop-off areas for banquets, service apartments, commercial area, public interface areas like double height entrance lobbies, banquet halls, landscaped terraces, swimming pool areas with facilities on the terrace above with pergolas, night views (to understand lighting mechanism), and birds' eye views etc.) from various better viewing angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations & materials used for a better understanding of the design proposal judiciously.

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

d) The porch shall be made more prominent by design improvisation i.e., detailed architectural elements and design.

e) The vehicular movement and the drop off points are not elucidated appropriately, the vehicular movement after drop-off (for banquet, commercial, and apartment areas) is conflicting with the incoming and outgoing vehicular movement on the site, and the same need to be resolved with thoughtful planning. Also, the two-way vehicular movement has been planned across the site and needs to be relooked at and resolved with thoughtfulness to avoid conflicts & choke points across the site.

f) Fragmented car parking provisions are made on the surface here & there so much so that blocking & creating hindrances to smooth vehicular movement, the same need to be relooked at and relocated somewhere else. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

g) The design proposal appears to be vehicular-friendly. Considering its diverse use including banquets, apartments, and commercial a combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plan from outside to the various use zones to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site better. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement.

h) It is suggested to recess the entry gate to 2 cars wide and 2 cars deep to manage the vehicle entry and to avoid a tail/bottleneck.

i) Waiting areas and baggage facilities shall also be planned appropriately in the entrance lobby for the apartment areas for the convenience of the users.

j) The plumbing mechanism is appropriately elucidated as some of the toilets do not have provision for shafts. Exposed plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes etc. spoil and mar the aesthetics of the site and surroundings, a design to screen them with appropriate materials be submitted. Also, the area accommodating the DG set should be appropriately detailed along with DG exhaust pipes with a screening mechanism so as not to spoil & mar the aesthetics and presented with a suitable medium for the consideration of the Commission for the review of the Commission.

k) A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) is supposed to be generated in the complex, and a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location on the site plan be submitted.

l) 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.

m) Installation of solar panels on the rooftop is maximised. The complex should aim to maximise energy efficiency and set an example for such future proposals. 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.

n) All service equipment, water tanks, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. 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 conceptual proposal could not be examined judiciously by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

Revised Building plan proposal in respect of Samrat Cinema Building at Shakurpur, opposite Britannia biscuit factory, Ring Road, Shakurpur. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal (formal) (for 2Basement + stilts + Ground + 5 floors) at its meeting held on March 21, 2018.
3. The revised building plan proposal (for 2 Basement + Ground + 6 floors) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission took note that the construction on the site is in progress.

b) The Commission observed that the 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) The 3D views presented do not elucidate the design proposal appropriately. Provision of shops and retails have been given on the ground and first floor but as shown in the 3D views presented the façade on these two floors (ground & first) is covered with vertical green all-around. The 3D views shall be corrected and coordinated 3D views with better viewing angles be submitted for the review of the Commission.  The 3D views shall be supplemented with a sufficient number of self-explanatory annotated 3D views (including public interface areas, entrance lobbies, drop-off areas, restaurants areas, open terraces etc., and night views (to understand lighting mechanism better), and birds' eye views etc.) from various better viewing angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations & materials used for a better understanding of the design proposal judiciously.

d) The architectural elements/material etc., shown in the 3D views & elevations are found to be missing in the plans submitted. All such details including architectural elements, materials on the façade, sun shading mechanisms etc. shall also be shown on the plans along with other appropriate details. Coordinated drawings (plans/elevations/section/3D views etc.) shall be submitted for a better understanding of the proposal.

e) A full sixth floor has been provided with restaurant facilities but its capacity and internal furniture arrangements (to understand its functioning better) and the use /function of a large open terrace outside are missing, the same shall be elucidated with appropriate details for the review of the Commission.

f) Innovative hoarding for the cinema posters and façade signage shall be explored to appeal aesthetically.

g) Very basic sections have been provided. An appropriate number of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) through end to end of the proposed scheme be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme clearly showing the architectural elements, materials on the façade, 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 plumbing mechanism is appropriately elucidated as some of the toilets do not have provision for shafts. Exposed plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes etc. spoil and mar the aesthetics of the site and surroundings, a design to screen them with appropriate materials be submitted. Also, the area accommodating the DG set should be appropriately detailed along with DG exhaust pipes with a screening mechanism so as not to spoil & mar the aesthetics and presented with a suitable medium for the consideration of the Commission for the review of the Commission.

i) A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) is supposed to be generated in the complex, and a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location on the site plan be submitted.

j) 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.

k) Installation of solar panels on the rooftop is maximised. The complex should aim to maximise energy efficiency and set an example for such future proposals. 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.

l) All service equipment, water tanks, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. 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 conceptual proposal could not be examined judiciously by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

Proposal in respect of new flyover at Modi Mill, Outer ring road (Between Modi Mill ROB to Kalkaji flyover). (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the proposal for integrated transit corridor development & street network connectivity plan at its meeting held on June 03, 2021, specific observations were given.
3. The revised proposal in respect of the new flyover at Modi Mill, Outer ring road (Between Modi Mill ROB to Kalkaji flyover) 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. Based on the previous observations given and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the proposal at the conceptual stage at its meeting held on June 03, 2021, very detailed specific observations were given with a request to furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply for a better understanding of the proposal, the same was found to be missing in the submission.

b) The architect is again advised to adhere to previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observations letter no: OL-24052127037 dated 09.06.2021 and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

4. Because of the unsatisfactory replies to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letters no OL-24052127037 dated 09.06.2021, the proposal is not fully appreciated 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.

Demolition and Reconstruction plan proposal for in respect of City Park Motel at Khasra no. 14/24, 14/16, 14/17 East situated at Village Singhola.(Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of the approvals (formal & Completion) taken from the Commission is found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plan proposal (for demolition & 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 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.

b) It was observed that long shots of the 3D views have been provided which do not clearly indicate the required details. All four sides of the design proposal should be elucidated with a sufficient number of self-explanatory annotated 3D views (including public interface areas, porch, drop-off areas, double-height banquet areas, double-height pre-function areas, entrance lobbies, landscaped terraces, areas around swimming pool with associated facilities, night views (to understand lighting mechanism), and birds' eye views etc.) from various better viewing angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations & materials used for a better understanding of the design proposal judiciously.

c) The architectural elements/material etc., shown in the 3D views & elevations are found to be missing in the plans submitted. All such details including architectural elements, materials on the façade, sun shading mechanisms etc. shall also be shown on the plans along with other appropriate details. Coordinated drawings (plans/elevations/section/3D views etc.) shall be submitted for a better understanding of the proposal.

d) The porch shall be made more prominent by design improvisation i.e., detailed architectural elements and design.

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

f) The vehicular movement and the drop off points are not elucidated appropriately, and the vehicular movement after drop-off is conflicting with the incoming and outgoing vehicular movement on the site, and the same need to be resolved with thoughtful planning. Also, the two-way vehicular movement has been planned across the site and needs to be relooked at and resolved with thoughtfulness to avoid conflicts & choke points across the site.

g) The provision of proposed parking is not clearly understood. The proposal mentions 50 ECS car parking provisions on the surface. Although, the layout does not clarify the accommodation of the mentioned car parking. 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. The complete circulation shall be clearly marked & elucidated in the relevant drawings.

h) The design proposal appears to be vehicular-friendly. Considering its diverse use including banquets, and commercial a combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plan from outside to the various use zones to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site better. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement.

i) It is suggested to recess the entry gate to 2 cars wide and 2 cars deep to manage the vehicle entry and to avoid a tail/bottleneck.

j) Some of the toilets do not have a provision for shafts. Exposed plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes etc. spoil and mar the aesthetics of the site and surroundings, a design to screen them with appropriate materials be submitted. Also, the area accommodating the DG set should be appropriately detailed along with DG exhaust pipes with a screening mechanism so as not to spoil & mar the aesthetics and presented with a suitable medium for the consideration of the Commission for the review of the Commission.

k) A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) is supposed to be generated in the complex, and a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location on the site plan be submitted.

l) 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.

m) Installation of solar panels on the rooftop is maximised. The complex should aim to maximise energy efficiency and set an example for such future proposals. 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.

n) All service equipment, water tanks, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. 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 conceptual proposal could not be examined judiciously 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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal for the petrol pump received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that sometimes the petrol pump owners erect a porta cabin-like structure (for pollution checks, tyre puncture etc.) without its approval which could have an overall bearing on the urban, visual, environmental and aesthetic quality of the complex/area. These later additions should be avoided and the same should be addressed while designing the scheme at the formal stage, so as not to mar the aesthetics later.

b) Signages provided must comply with the applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

c) Three options for public artwork were presented, the option no-1 was found to be more appropriate.

d) 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, 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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 07, 2022.
3. The revised building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, 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.