Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1675th meeting held on 27.10.2022 respectively.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1675th meeting held on 27.10.2022 respectively was discussed.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South 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) The Commission observed that the proposal is at the formal stage but a lot of discrepancies have been observed in the submission, presentation and the submission drawings (site plan, parking plans (stilts, ground floor plan, lower basement, upper basement etc.)). The submission at the formal stage coordinated with each other (plans/elevations/sections/3d views etc.) should be submitted for the review of the Commission.

b) The Commission observed that the proposal is situated in the vicinity of the residential area of the Greater Kailash Part-II and 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 design proposal being at the formal stage it should be elucidated with a sufficient number of self-explanatory annotated 3D views of public areas as well (including the porch, drop-off area, cafeteria, lobby areas, night views to understand lighting mechanism, and birds' eye views etc.) with better viewing angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations & materials used for a better understanding of the design proposal judiciously.

d) Sense to arrival appears to be missing in the design proposal, the drop-off areas, entrance porch etc., should be suitably designed & elucidated with appropriate details (plans/elevations/3D views) in terms of architectural elements, materials, form etc., to give a sense of arrival on the site.

e) Fragmented car parking provisions are made on the surface here & there and appear to be creating hindrances to smooth vehicular movement, the same need to be relooked at. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

f) The design proposal appears to be vehicular-friendly. Considering its diverse use including exhibitions, museums, art galleries, guest rooms, cafeterias etc. 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.

g) Area accommodating DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc., should be appropriately detailed with 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.

h) Provision of a cafeteria has been given on the ground floor, the capacity of the same shall be indicated along with functional furniture arrangement for a better understanding of the design. 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.

i) 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.

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) Landscape details are missing/incomplete for the proposal. They shall be detailed in terms of point nos. Six of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

l) It has been observed that a large chunk of space is available on the rooftop the same can be utilised appropriately for the installation of solar panels and help reduce the 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.

m) All water tanks, plumbing pipes, service equipment, 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.

3. 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 received at the formal stage could not be examined judiciously by the Commission.
4. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 11, 2016, and the layout of the proposal was approved in the meeting held on June 01, 2016.
3. The Commission accepted the NOC for Part Completion (Block Type-1, 2, 3 only) at its meeting held on December 09, 2021, and specific observations were given.
4. The proposal of NOC for Part Completion (Community Centre Block-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 proposal for NOC for Completion (Part) is found acceptable.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approvals (formal/completion) taken from the Commission 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 following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed that the proposal is at the formal stage and only one 3D view of the design proposal has been submitted without elucidating the materiality of the façade, the same should be relooked at and all sides annotated 3D views (including birds' eye view, the area having pergolas on the terrace, night time views (to understand lighting mechanism better)) should be provided with better viewing angles & clarity on the materials used on the facade, to understand the overall design scheme judiciously.

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

c) The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade thereby spoiling the visual, urban aesthetics. Innovative design provisions shall be made in the design itself to accommodate the outdoor air-conditioner units, and it shall be ensured that the pipes are appropriately screened so that they are not exposed on the outer façade and mar the aesthetics.

d) Landscape details are incomplete for the proposal. They shall be detailed in terms of point nos. Six of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

f) All water tanks, plumbing pipes, service equipment, 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. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 02, 2004, specific observations were given and accepted NOC for Completion at its meeting held on March 22, 2006.
3. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for addition/alteration (additions on the third floor) at its meeting held on June 19, 2019, and specific observations were given.
4. The building plan proposal for NOC for Completion (Part-additions on the third floor) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the comments given by the concerned local body i.e., DDA, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission.  Based on the comments received from the local body, the discussion (online) held with the architect, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while approving the proposal at the formal stage following specific observation was given communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-11061922028 dated 28.06.2019:

“……. For better connectivity of the new addition (proposed area) with rest of the shopping mall area, appropriate number of escalators along with capsule lifts be provided…...”

During the discussion with the architect (online), it was evident that the same has not been complied with, and needs clarifications.

b) The proposal has not been sufficiently documented to the extent that the photographs of the completed structure (for which portion NOC has been applied) are not captured explicitly. An appropriate number of photographs of the completed superstructure (for which NOC for completion is required) must be provided & documented with suitable labelling/delineation and uncut/clear photographs from all sides 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) 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.

5. 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.
6. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and discussed during the online discussion, 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 building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 17, 2020, and specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission (given at the time of formal approval) communicated vide DUAC approval letter no. OL-30121922064 dated 23.01.2020 and comments given by the concerned local body i.e., DDA. Based on the previous observations, comments received from the local body, and submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed that while forwarding the proposal to the Commission at the completion stage following observation/recommendations has been made in Performa Part-C (completion stage) by the concerned local body i.e., DDA:

“…….observations/recommendations of the sanctioning authority while forwarding the matter to DUAC for consideration in the Performa Part-C of the Completion stage from serial no 1 to 4 indicates the following:

“…..NO..…”

The Commission considers the proposals based on the certification related to building bye-laws etc. furnished by the concerned local body. Taking into consideration the observations/recommendations made and forwarded by the concerned local body i.e., DDA, the proposal could not be examined judiciously by the Commission.

b) It was to the displeasure & disappointment of the Commission that this submission has fudged, graphically modified photographs and distorted data related to the proposal at the Completion stage, which exaggerated the actual site conditions. Also, it is against the letter and spirit of the Ease of Doing Business (EoDB) which is not appreciated by the Commission and strongly advised the concerned architect to submit truthful submission only for the consideration of the Commission.

c) The Commission observed that while approving the proposal at the formal stage some specific observations were given and communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-30121922064 dated 23.01.2020. Some of them are as under:

“……i. The tar road along the periphery to be minimised and replaced with hard greens.

ii. The design of the MLCP is very bland, i.e., it does not have an aesthetically pleasing elevation. It shall be revised appropriately vis-à-vis other similar projects like Delhi Airport MLCP can be studied which make use of natural creepers to cover the façade.

iii. The services on the façade shall be properly concealed keeping in mind the Architectural character of the complex. The elevation facing the main road needs to be toned down and made less garish…..”

From the documentation submitted along with the actual site photographs, it is evident that neither the same has been complied with nor has any clarification in this respect been given.

d) The proposal has not been sufficiently documented to the extent that the photographs of the completed structure (for which portion NOC has been applied) is not captured explicitly. An appropriate number of photographs of the completed superstructure (for which NOC for completion is required) must be provided & documented with suitable labelling/delineation and uncut/clear photographs from all sides for a better understanding of the proposal.

e) 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.

f) 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.

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

Building plans proposal for addition/alteration in respect of Motel building on Khasra no. 51/16, 51/17 Min, 51/18 Min, 51/19 Min, 51/20 Min, 51/23 Min, 51/24, 51/25, 57/4 Min, 57/5, 57/6 Min, 57/26, 50/20 at Village Bakoli (for Krish Developers (P) Ltd.)  (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.
3. The building plan proposal for addition/alteration received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised and the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the architect/proponent has indicated at serial number 11 in the list of appendixes of the project report submitted that:

“…. existing approvals of Motel (Sanctioned plans/Completion certificate) …..”

But no such information has been provided by the architect. Moreover, no previous record of the approvals taken from the Commission (Formal and Completion) as indicated by the architect in its report, has been found in the available record of the Commission.

4. As a lot of additions/alterations have been proposed in the existing development, and vital information is not provided to the Commission, the design proposal at the conceptual stage is returned to the architect/proponent without consideration by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to furnish previous approvals taken from the Commission (Formal and Completion) and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 04, 2019, and approved the revised building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 12, 2019, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) From the documentation (drawings/project report, actual site photographs etc.), it is evident that the proposal is for NOC for Completion, but the architect/proponent has got it forwarded, through the concerned local body, in the wrong section of the DUAC OPAAS i.e., “Formal”. However, the proposal appears to be for NOC for Completion needs to be forwarded in the “Completion Section” of the DUAC OPAAS with complete documentation for consideration by the Commission.

b) The Commission considers the proposals for NOC for Completion based on the certification related to building bye-laws etc. furnished by the concerned local body which are missing in the submission.

c) In addition to the above, 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) Uncut photographs from all sides of the completed structure (including the roof with services and nighttime photographs etc.) should be supplemented for judicious consideration of the proposal by the Commission.

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 could not be appreciated judiciously 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.