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

2. The Commission approved the revised layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 11, 2019, specific observations were given.

3. The revised layout and building plan proposal received (online) was scrutinized, and the following observations were given:

a) The drawings provided are not legible, i.e. resolution is too low for the drawings to be readable appropriately. The same shall be resubmitted in a high-resolution format. As of now, due to a lack of clarity of understanding, the scheme could not be fully comprehended by the Commission.

b) An appropriate number of annotated 3D views shall be submitted with clarity and better viewing angles. Utilities (with screening mechanisms) to be reflected in the 3D views as well as the drawings wherever provided.

c) The proposed lift/staircase lobby in Tower A, B, C and EWS blocks shall be enlarged to accommodate the anticipated volume of people. It shall be as per applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

d) Typical floor plan details of every block including EWS, Community facilities etc. shall be submitted with all the relevant specifics including internal furniture arrangements to understand the functioning better.

e) The balconies need to be screened appropriately along with the provision of screening of drying clothes, dish antennas etc.

f) The skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

g) The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, the provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units, at this stage, so as not to mar the aesthetics. A scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material of screening for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views. In the case of VRV systems, their location shall be highlighted in the relevant drawings etc. and shown.

h) The boundary wall and entrance gate would have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the area and need to be designed appropriately and shown with relevant details (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.).

i) The elements of sustainability are missing in the design scheme. These shall be identified and marked on the plans. Roof-top utilities are not shown in the plan/ 3D views and thus require to be shown on the relevant drawings. 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.

j) The work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level (human eye) to be installed in the Community facilities at appropriate places and shown in the relevant drawings.

k) All service equipment at the terrace ensured to be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on DUAC website at www.duac.org.

4. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 07, 2018. But, the revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations was not approved in the meeting of the Commission held on November 27, 2020, specific observations were given.

3. 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 observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-25112055068 dated 03.12.2020. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted following observations were given:

a) The Commission observed that in terms of the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-25112055068 dated 03.12.2020 indicated at sr. no. 3 (c, d, f, g, h, i, k, 4) inadequate compliances for this has been given. Due to a lack of clarity of information, the proposal is not understood clearly.

b) In one of the replies to the earlier observations of the Commission, the architect has indicated that:

"..........our client has fond of Greek Architecture.........."

4. In view of the above, the architect was advised to prepare an appropriate number of alternative options (preferably three) of the elevational façade incorporated with the elements/features from the Greek architecture combined with all the previous observations of the Commission and resubmit the proposal at a conceptual level first and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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

2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal level was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx Meetings, wherein the architect explained its features, constraints and provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission related to the rationale behind the proposal, site constraints, features, scope of work, location etc. following observations were given:

a) Considering the location of the proposal and its proximity to the monuments of historical importance, the selection of the material (ACP) for the façade shall be reconsidered and replaced with an appropriate material harmonious with the surrounding structures of historical importance.

b) Huge cut-out of the monument placed as `work of art` on the front façade shall be relooked at and could be potentially replaced by a combination of vertical green and additional advertisement panels. The possibilities of covering a substantial part of all façades with creepers and vertical greens with the appropriate mechanism of irrigation/drip irrigation, shall be explored.

c) Photovoltaic system to be integrated suitably in design for sustainability in terms of point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.

d) DG set, LT panel room and all service equipments at the terrace ensured to be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on DUAC website at www.duac.org.

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

2. The building plan proposal was approved by the Commission at its meeting held on April 13, 2007, and the NOC for completion plan proposal was approved in the meeting held on January 05, 2011.

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of floors) was received (online) at the formal level was scrutinised and the following observations were given:

a) Parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

b) The proposal is for addition/ alteration, the addition of sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth floor above an existing superstructure. A lot of live/dead load is being added to the existing building. Considering structural changes in the existing building proposed structure shall be such designed that it can withstand weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquake etc. and it shall be vetted by a third party of repute.

c) A signage policy (as per the prevailing policy/ guidelines) shall be adopted in the site for coherence and to maintain uniformity & enable facade control.

d) 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.

e) All service equipment at the terrace ensured to be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on DUAC website at www.duac.org.

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

2. The Commission did not accept the proposal for integrated transit corridor development & street network connectivity plan at its meeting held on December 19, 2019, specific observations were given.

3. The proposal for Integrated transit corridor development & street network connectivity plan in respect of the provision of Grade separator at Sarai Kale Khan along the ring road, signal-free movement between Modi Mill ROB and Nehru Place, and provision of Grade separator at Savitri Cinema along Outer Ring Road received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-11121927139 dated 24.12.2019. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted following observations were given:

a) The Commission observed that in terms of the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-09051827149 dated 23.05.2018, OL-14121861003 dated 26.12.2018, OL-01051961005 dated 10.05.2019, OL-11121927139 dated 24.12.2019 inadequate compliances for this has been given. Due to a lack of clarity of information, the proposal is not understood clearly.

b) The Commission has strongly observed that three proposals are of great significance given the scale, size, location and overall impact on the urban, environmental, visual and aesthetics of the city of Delhi. These have been clubbed together and forwarded for the consideration of the Commission. The proposals are located in the different parts of the city with varied site constraints, scope and bearing on the urban, environmental, visual and aesthetics of the area. To examine the proposals judiciously, it was suggested to segregate them all and to be resubmitted.

c) Also, the Commission strongly suggested that the proponent should make separate presentations for each of the stretches before them with complete details, walkthroughs etc. required to comprehend the proposals better.

d) The Commission observed that the proposals should not be considered only for problems pertaining to engineering solutions of traffic/transportation in the form of flyovers and underpasses but should also be seen into the larger context of a cityscape focusing on its spatial impact and experience of the pedestrian. It should be considered as a large-scale intervention in the city fabric, and its impact on the urban form and the surrounding areas, particularly on edges shall not be neglected. Therefore, complete information in this regard needs to be submitted.

e) The Commission observed that the proposal cannot be studied in isolation i.e. it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities. The 3D views shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings, for a better understanding of the proposal in the existing environment to make it clearer.

f) The proposal shall also be seen from the perspective of the motorists driving experience. All elements need to be worked out at an initial stage and nothing should be done as an afterthought, not in context, to the design. An overall comprehensive scheme needs to be formulated to avoid any additions/alterations at a later stage. Details of various street elements like Light poles, railings, crash guards, noise cutters, signage for wayfinding, pedestrian facilities, cyclist facilities and appropriate provisions for rainwater harvesting need to be submitted. Rainwater pipes etc. shall ensure to be screened/ harvesting need to be submitted.

g) Considering the scale, size, location, and abundance of spaces available under the flyover, they shall be designed and put to appropriate use to ensure that they do not become dumping grounds or be encroached so as not to spoil the overall urban and visual aesthetics of the area. Also, these spaces may be used for landscaping, rainwater harvesting, and utilities that can be accommodated and are required for the surrounding areas.

h) A comprehensive landscape plan including the area on/underside flyover etc. including the area below flyover for the complete scheme needs to be worked out and shown along with a sufficient number of Self-explanatory 3D views. The details of trees affected for the proposal, if any, shall also be submitted.

i) An appropriate number of sections (longitudinal and cross-sections) along with the elevational heights of the surrounding development etc. be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme in the actual environment.

j) The provisions made for the work of art shall be planned keeping in mind the scale, material and significance in the form of Murals, sculptures, art & architecture, rich cultural heritage of the city etc. as appropriate, to make the spaces lively & inviting, needs to be submitted.

4. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission & make separate presentations after segregating the three in separate submissions with complete details including walkthroughs, 3D views etc. to comprehend the proposals better and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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

2. The Commission did not accept the Layout and Building plans proposal at the conceptual stage in the meeting of the Commission held on August 28, 2020, specific observations were given.

3. The revised Layout and Building plan proposal at the conceptual stage received (online) was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-21082027064 dated 03.09.2020. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted following observations were given:

a) The Commission observed that in terms of the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-21082027064 dated 03.09.2020 indicated at sr. no. 2 (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, i, 3) inadequate compliances for this has been given.

b) The Commission observed that given the large plot size, the site has been designed without taking into consideration potential future evolution and requirements. This design approach might alter and mar the aesthetics of the area by creating avoidable limitations.

c) It is again reiterated that considering the scale of the project, it was suggested to the architect/proponent, to consider approvals of the proposal in the following manner:

     i. The Master Plan of the scheme.
    ii. Approvals of the individual blocks.

d) The master plan for the site is suggested to be redone with zoning, where the use zones are segregated keeping in mind principles of connectivity, functioning, privacy, noise reduction etc. Considering futuristic developments in the site, it was strongly suggested to prepare a comprehensive master plan for the site incorporated with all the current and future requirements and be submitted.

e) Individual blocks or group of blocks should consider basement parking to increase flexibility of valuable surface area for landscaping and potential future expansion.

4. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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

2. The conceptual plan proposal for covering of ramps received (online) was scrutinised and the following observations were given:

a) Three options to cover the ramp were presented before the Commission. Option no-1 (provided on page no-12 of the project report) was found to be more appropriate.

b) Appropriate arrangements shall be made to stop rainwater ingress into the ramps and protection against rain etc.

c) Taking into consideration the weather conditions in the City of Delhi, the maintenance aspect of the fabric proposed shall be outlined thoughtfully.

d) Sustainability aspects including rainwater harvesting features shall be ensured and outlined thoughtfully with appropriate detailing.