Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1676th meeting held on 03.11.2022 respectively.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1676th meeting held on 03.11.2022 respectively was discussed.

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 August 25, 2021, and specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the proposal for NOC for Completion at its meeting held on September 08, 2022, specific observations were given.
4. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No. OL-06092249009 dated 12.09.2022 and the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., North DMC in part ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the observations/recommendations received, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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 advises the concerned architect to submit truthful submission only for the consideration of the Commission.

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) 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 fudged, graphically modified information provided to the Commission, the proposal for NOC for the completion plan could not be examined judiciously by the Commission.
6. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply and submit a ‘truthful submission only’ for consideration of the Commission.

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 Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on November 03, 2022, specific observations were given.
4. 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 DUAC observation letter no: OL-01112255065 dated 07.11.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

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

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 04, 2019, and the revised building plan proposal was approved at its meeting held on September 12, 2019, and specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not approve the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on November 10, 2022, specific observations were given.
4. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No. OL-09112223070 dated 15.11.2022 and the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., North DMC in part ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the observations/recommendations received, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the proposal at its meeting held on November 10, 2022, very detailed & specific observations were communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-09112223070 dated 15.11.2022 with advice to furnish its incorporation/reply. It is disappointing to observe that the same has remained non-compliant, which is not appreciated by the Commission.

b) Due thought had been given by the Commission while approving the case at the formal level, especially the façade, considering its location, architectural elements, materials etc. However, it is disappointing to observe that the façade has been completely altered, in terms of aesthetics, architectural elements, form, materials etc., which is not appreciated by the Commission.

c) Double stack parking provisions along with a car lift have been made in the formal submission, an appropriate number of uncut photographs of the same (including the basement) must be supplemented to substantiate its actual construction at the site.

d) Approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall be superimposed on the plans/elevations/sections/3D views 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.

e) Uncut photographs from all sides of the completed structure (including the main gate, boundary wall, roof with services, basement, double stack parking, and night-time photographs etc.) should be supplemented for judicious consideration of the proposal by the Commission.

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

5. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal could not be appreciated judiciously by the Commission.
6. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

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) The Commission observed and understood that the site is located in District Centre (DC) at Bhikaji Cama Place at an important location in New Delhi surrounded by the five-star hotel, Government offices, Institutional offices etc. Therefore, it cannot be studied in isolation i.e., it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities (in and around the complex). Therefore, a sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views at various angles (including birds’ eye views, night-time views to understand lighting arrangements etc.), clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations 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 for judicious consideration of the design scheme.

b) The Commission observed that considering its location, usage and futuristic requirements, FAR provisions are to be capitalised to the full extent and the design scheme be modified accordingly. Possibility of minimum of 2 basements for parking should be explored.

c) Provision of waiting areas for drivers with seating arrangements, drinking water facilities, toilets etc., shall be made.

d) The project is submitted at the Formal stage and should submit detailed drawings of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) along with the building heights of the surrounding properties to examine the design proposal contextually. Also, the skin sections (in detail), and the details of the pergolas, trellis etc. provided on top of the terrace shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

e) The proposed design shall have scope for structural planning development to avoid cramping of available vehicular spaces at the time of execution. The width of vehicular ramps is varying in size and considering the diverse sizes of vehicles (including SUVs, Sedan etc.) the turning radius appears to be inappropriate. The same shall be detailed sufficiently for the judicious examination of the Commission.  

f) The entrance to the building shall be made such to have an ‘inviting appearance’ as it is surrounded by various categories of existing buildings.

g) The terrace should be used for solar panels as well. Design solution needs to be worked out in such a manner that the vehicles parked on the terrace get protection as well as solar panels are also installed. Also, the terrace is overlooked by the surrounding buildings, and the current mechanism on the terrace could spoil the visual and overall urban aesthetics of the complex, which needs to be considered thoughtfully and revision be made accordingly.

h) Work of art as per the terms of the public art provisions as stipulated under point no. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website needs to be provided.

i) 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.

j) Rooftop utilities are missing in the submission, solar photovoltaic panels shall be suitably accommodated in the design so as not to mar the aesthetics and help to reduce the carbon footprint. Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

k) All water tanks, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, 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) as 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 judiciously by the Commission.
4. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal (hospital block-A-3B+G+7; Nurse hostel: B+G+6; Dormitory: B+G+5; Mortuary: B+G+1; Dr Residence: B+G+6, and Guest house) at its meeting held on November 18, 2009.
3. The Commission approved the revised building plans proposal (hospital:3B+G+8floors) at its meeting held on March 31, 2017.
4. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on October 20, 2022, specific observations were given.
5. The revised building plans proposal for additions/alterations (for the addition of two floors (9^th & 10^th floor over existing hospital Building B+G+8 floors), proposed new Hospital Block (3B+G+1 floor) and Utility Block (3B+G floor)) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter No. OL-17102222061 dated 25.10.2022. Based on the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the proposal at its meeting held on October 20, 2022, very detailed and specific observations were communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-17102222061 dated 25.10.2022 with the advice that:

“……..the architect is advised to revise the submission adhering to all the above observations given by the Commission and submit a complete revised submission (with complete drawings/plans/elevations/sections/3d views/ documentation etc.) for its consideration and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply…..”

It was to the disappointment of the Commission that all its previous observations have remained non-compliant.

b) In view of the non-compliances of the previous observations of the Commission, the proposal is found to be not satisfactory.

6. The architect is again advised to revise the submission adhering to all the above observations given by the Commission and submit a complete revised submission (with complete drawings/plans/elevations/sections/3d views/ documentation etc.) for its consideration and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the PWD-GNCTD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 16, 1993, and specific observations were given. The layout and building plan proposal (hostels, staff quarters, and the part academic complex) was approved in the meeting held on September 24, 1993, and specific observations were given.
3. The Commission approved the building plan proposal (Academic block- 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B) at its meeting held on May 18, 2018, and specific observations were given.
4. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 22, 2022, and specific observations were given.
5. The building plan proposal (addition of academic block behind block-6) 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-12092261014 dated 27.09.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Requisite parking requirements should be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

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 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.

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 April 11, 2011, and specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., DDA in parts ‘B’ and ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the observations/recommendations received from the concerned local body and the 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) The proposal is for NOC for Completion, while approving the building plan proposal at the formal stage requisite parking arrangements had been shown in the two basements (basement-I & II) with car-lift, the photographs of which are missing in the submission.   An appropriate number of uncut photographs of both these basements shall be provided along with the car lift for the review of the Commission.

c) For a better understanding of the proposal at the completion stage side by side photographs ‘Before (submitted at the time of DUAC formal approval) and After (current actual built construction)’ of the constructed building block 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 compliance & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on December 15, 2005.
3. The Commission accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on June 19, 2008.
4. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations (addition of the fourth floor over the existing Ground + 3 Floors) 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) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

b) All water tanks, plumbing pipes, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. must 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 25, 2012.
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 the existing ground floor & two basements) at its meeting held on October 27, 2022, and September 22, 2022, respectively, specific observations were given.
5. The revised building plans proposal for additions/alterations in Oncology Block (addition of first to eleventh floors over the existing ground floor & two basements) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the compliances/replies submitted by the architect in response to previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-20102222063 dated 31.10.2022. Based on the replies submitted, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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.

b) In one of compliance with the previous observations of the Commission, three options for proposed parking arrangements on the site were presented, the option No-1 was found to be more appropriate. All requisite parking arrangements on the site shall 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) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

d) All water tanks, plumbing pipes, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, DG Sets, DG exhaust pipes etc. must 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 approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 05, 2007, and the revised layout and building plan proposal was approved at its meeting held on August 12, 2021, respectively, and specific observations were given.
3. The Commission accepted the Concept of the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on March 17, 2022, and specific observations were given.
4. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated (at the time of the conceptual stage) vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-07032227020 dated 22.03.2022, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed that the previous observations of the Commission communicated (at the time of the conceptual stage) vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-07032227020 dated 22.03.2022 have not been complied with.

b) The proposal is at the formal stage with six separate blocks of diverse usages, building façade, architectural elements, forms, and material specification have been proposed. But, the details of the same have not been elucidated appropriately making it difficult to appreciate the proposal (at the formal stage) judiciously. 

c) It was suggested to revise the submission to the extent that all six blocks be detailed and presented (separately as well) with detailed plans/elevations/sections/detailed skin sections/3D views (with better viewing angle & enhanced visuals) etc., for a better understanding of the proposal.

d) The project is submitted at the Formal stage and should submit detailed drawings of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) showing the distance between the proposed buildings to understand the shadows, light etc. between the buildings. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

e) The Commission again reiterated to explore the possibility of a centralised ammonia-based air-conditioning system instead of individual air-conditioning as indicated in the presentation submitted for the consideration of the Commission, it would also support increasing the overall rating for the project.

f) Work of art shall ensure to be in terms of the public art provisions as stipulated under point no. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

g) Rooftop utilities are missing in the submission, these shall be identified and marked on the plans.  Roof-top utilities are to be shown in relevant drawings. The screening for the same shall also be mentioned and marked clearly in the plans/3D views. Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

h) 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) All 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.

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

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

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