Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1776th meeting held on 29.08.2024.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1776th meeting held on 29.08.2024 were discussed.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The Commission noted that the proposal has been submitted at the formal stage, but the quality of the 3D views is inadequate. The scale, proportion, and materials are unclear. The views should be revised and resubmitted with improved clarity, better visuals, and enhanced viewing angles from all sides to clearly display the materials used on the façade and to illustrate the design scheme in detail. Additionally, the 3D views should be superimposed on the existing site and surrounding context, including road networks and nearby structures, to provide a clearer understanding of the proposal within its actual environment and to highlight any existing or retained features.

b) It was also observed that the design includes a large playground; however, the plot boundary and its extent are unclear from the provided 3D views. The areas, including the playground and other open spaces, have not been adequately captured, leading to inconsistencies in the submission. Therefore, the 3D views including birds eye views should be revised, incorporated with all the services on terrace with its screening mechanism, to encompass the entire proposed development on the site for a comprehensive review by the Commission.

c) The materials proposed for the building façade are not clearly specified in the submission. Details of the materials for the façade and public art must be clearly annotated in the relevant drawings and 3D views. Additionally, submit comprehensive skin sections that offer a detailed understanding of the façade’s elevation, including the materials used for the review of the architectural design and façade.

d) Additionally, it was noted that the large central courtyard has been covered with a pergola, but the submission lacks details such as material specifications, design elements, and other relevant information. Being a formal submission, need to provide comprehensive details, including detailed plans, material specifications, fixing details, and architectural elements, etc., for the review of the Commission.

e) It is understood that most classrooms may not be air-conditioned at this stage, but future provisions should be considered, especially for areas like administrative offices and the principal’s room, which may use separate air-conditioning units. Outdoor air-conditioning units could detract from the building’s aesthetics. To prevent this, provisions should be incorporated into the design at this stage to accommodate the units without compromising the façade’s appearance. A scheme must be submitted showing the placement, screening, and materials used for these units, reflected in the plans, elevations, and 3D views.

f) The girl's toilet near the multipurpose hall lacks a shaft for plumbing and ventilation. It should be revised to include appropriately sized shafts and a screening mechanism. Additionally, common shower areas are shown in the design; however, the girl's and boy's shower areas should be segregated and positioned to ensure user comfort. Overall, the planning of the toilets, including the shower areas near the multipurpose hall, requires revision.

g) A vehicular ramp has been provided for basement access. If there is a possibility of covering the ramp in the future, it is recommended to submit the design and related details at this stage to ensure that these elements are properly integrated into the overall design scheme.

h) A combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian (school children) and vehicular movement from outside is 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) The landscape plan is incomplete and should be further detailed with appropriate hardscape and softscape treatments. It must include information on planted trees, existing trees, ground levels, and the types of species, all presented at an appropriate scale (in terms of point nos. Six of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

j) Although solar panels have been included in the drawings, they are not depicted in the 3D views, creating an inconsistency in the submission. 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) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, ensure to be installed in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

l) All water tanks, rainwater pipes, plumbing pipes, service equipment, DG Set, DG exhaust 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) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. Overall, due to lack of clarity & comprehensiveness for a submission received at the formal stage, the Commission could not review it judiciously. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the Architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held online, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) During discussions with the architect, it was noted that there was an error in the drawing where the rainwater pipes were incorrectly depicted. The architect clarified that the rainwater pipes will be placed in two shafts, located at the left corner and the rear end of the building.

b) 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.

c) All water tanks, rainwater 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.

1. The DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on September 22, 1995 and accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on August 31, 2001, respectively. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on November 6, 2019; specific observations were given. Subsequently, the Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on July 11, 2024, observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion (Part-for the additions/alteration approved formally in the meeting held on 06.11.2019) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinized along with observations made during the formal stage approval, as communicated in DUAC approval letter no: OL-25101922048 dated November 11, 2019 and observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-08072448038, F.no. 48(38)/2024-DUAC dated 16.07.2024.  Based on these formal stage observations and the revised submission received for NOC for completion (part), which includes drawings, documents, and photographs of the complex, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal is currently at the completion stage (part) and has been resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing the previous observations outlined in the DUAC letter no: OL-08072448038, F. No. 48(38)/2024-DUAC dated 16.07.2024.

b) The Commission reiterated the observations previously communicated in the letter dated July 16, 2024, specifically noting that:

“……(b) The Commission observed that the site photographs reveal exposed rainwater pipes, outdoor air conditioning units, and temporary coverings that detract from the aesthetics of the building façade. It was also observed that only a few building blocks have been photographed, the proposal being at the Completion stage, need to submit annotated photographs of the building block (for which NOC is required) from all sides for the review of the Commission.

       (c) The Commission stressed that in order to obtain the NOC for completion, the building must adequately screen all exposed pipes, designate screened spaces for outdoor air conditioning units, and remove all temporary coverings from the balconies.”

These observations have not been addressed, despite the proposal being received at the completion stage. To obtain the NOC for completion, updated site photographs reflecting the aforementioned modifications including removal of all unauthorised coverings, covering of exposed pipes must be submitted. The architect should ensure that all of the Commission's observations are adequately addressed for further review.

c) Further, while replying to the observations of the Commission communicated OL-08072448038, F.no. 48(38)/2024-DUAC dated 16.07.2024, the architect has replied that:

“……..All the AC outdoor units are either inside court areas or between two blocks (not visible from external road).  Rainwater pipes are being camouflaged through GRC jali work and temporary coverings are also in the process of removal…..”

The Commission did not accept or appreciate the responses submitted by the architect for the proposal received at the completion stage (part). It has been suggested that all subsequent additions, unauthorized coverings, and similar modifications made after the formal approval be removed, restoring the project to its original (formal) stage.

d) To improve clarity in the submission, the architect should provide annotated photographs clearly marking the areas for which NOC for Completion (part) has been applied, highlighting both the modified areas and those that remain unchanged. This will assist the Commission in understanding the extent of the modifications.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the completion stage (part) is lacking in documentation and clarity regarding which area require NOC for Completion. Additionally, there have been unauthorized additions, coverings, exposed rainwater pipes, and similar modifications made after formal approval.
5. Due to the previous observations remaining non-compliant at the completion stage, the Commission could not appreciate the proposal. It is requested that the Architect submit a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission in a clear and point-by-point manner.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the master plan (AIIMS) at its meeting held on July 10, 2013.
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) A discrepancy was noted in the submission, stating that the site is located 1 km away from the AIIMS metro station (yellow line) while requesting a 30% parking deduction for being in the metro vicinity. This contradicts the existing dynamic parking norms, which clearly indicate that:

“….for properties located up to 500 m from a metro station, the deduction in parking within the plot shall be 30 percent of the parking norm”.

Therefore, as per applicable provisions for the dynamic parking, the project does not qualify for metro deductions according to the current parking norms, as it is situated 1 km away. Accordingly, the parking Metrix shall be appropriately relooked at and revised submission shall be submitted for the review of the Commission.

b) Additionally, the parking calculations include a 10% deduction for an MLCP, but the submission does not indicate the location of the MLCP. This creates ambiguity regarding which MLCP would serve the site's parking needs.

c) The proposed building is part of an existing complex that already has operational parking. However, the submission does not demonstrate how the existing parking and circulation will be integrated with the proposed building, resulting in an inadequate information about the overall plan.

d) A discrepancy has been noted in the submission: the parking plan indicates multiple parking lots with surface parking (double and triple stack) to meet the required number of car parking spaces. However, the details of the stack parking are not reflected in the 3D views, which could affect the building's urban aesthetics and environment. The submission should be revised, and corrected 3D views incorporating the stack parking must be provided for the Commission's review.

e) As an alternative, it is suggested to relocate all parking to the basement (with the option of double or triple stack) to free up surface space for safer and more seamless pedestrian and vehicle movement. Access to the basement parking can be provided via ramp or car lift. The cleared surface area can then be utilized for soft landscaping, helping to mitigate issues such as urban flooding.

f) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, ensure to be installed in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

g) 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) Water tanks, rainwater pipes, plumbing pipes, service equipment, DG Set, DG exhaust 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) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. Overall, due to the inconsistencies and incomprehensiveness of the submission received at the formal stage, the proposal could not be reviewed judiciously. The architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations. It is requested that the architect submit a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission in a clear and point-by-point manner.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the building plan at its meeting held on December 01, 2018 but did not approve the revised building plan proposal (formal) at its meeting held on May 09, 2024, July 4, 2024 and August 22, 2024, respectively, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plans received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission Communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-20082455116, F.no. 55(116)/2024-DUAC dated 29.08.2024. Based on the replies submitted and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on CISCO Webex meetings who gave a detailed presentation and provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held online, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) During discussions with the architect (online), it was clarified that the toilets in the club area are mechanically ventilated, and appropriately sized shafts are detailed in both the sections and plans to service the toilets on the ground floor of the club area.

b) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, ensure to be installed in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

c) The 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.

d) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning 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) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the Commission's available record. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal (Formal) at its meeting held on June 13, 2024, specific observations were made.
3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (alterations from ground to second and addition of a third floor) received online at the formal stage was scrutinized along with the replies submitted by the Architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No.: 55(97)/2024-DUAC, OL-05062455097 dated June 18, 2024. Based on the replies submitted, and the 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 construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) The Commission observed that the proposal is currently at the formal stage and has been resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing the previous observations outlined in the DUAC letter no: 55(97)/2024-DUAC, OL-05062455097 dated June 18, 2024.

c) The Commission reiterated the observations previously communicated in the letter dated June 18, 2024, specifically noting that:

“….(b) The Commission noted that the proposal for additions/alterations involves adding a third floor to an existing structure comprising B+G+2 floors. There is a discrepancy between the existing photographs and the proposed 3D views, as the 3D views do not align with the existing façade shown in the photographs. Furthermore, it appears to be a case of demolition and reconstruction. This needs to be reviewed, and the design scheme should be corrected and coordinated accordingly before resubmission for the Commission’s review.”

These observations remain unaddressed, even though the proposal is received at the formal stage.

4. Overall, due to non-compliances to its previous observations the proposal could not be reviewed judiciously by the Commission. The Architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations the Commission gave and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.