SL. No. | PROPOSAL | | OBSERVATIONS /SUGGESTIONS | | DECISION | | REMARKS |
---|
|
B. | Action Taken Report on Minutes of 1567th meeting (online) held on 27.11.2020. | | 1. The Action Taken Reports on minutes of the 1567th meeting ( online ) of the Delhi Urban Art Commission held on 27.11.2020 was discussed. | | Noted by the Commission | | |
|
C. PROJECT PROPOSALS: |
1 | Building plans in
respect of residence of Hon’ble Chief Minister of Delhi at 6 Flag Road, Civil
Lines, Delhi. | | 1. The proposal was forwarded by the PWD ( GNCTD ) ( online ) for consideration of the Commission. 2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on November 06, 2020 specific observations were given. 3. The revised proposal at formal stage received ( online ) was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx Meetings, wherein the architect explained the overall design intent and provided clarifications to the queries related to the elevational features on the façade etc. However, based on the detailed discussion, replies and the revised proposal submitted, the following observations were given: a. The proposed office block, staff, security blocks and boundary wall are very much part of the overall complex, and shall have an aesthetic and visual impact on the complex. However, the detailed 3D views and elevations clearly indicating the architectural features, materials to be used have not been provided to comprehend the proposal. The estate office and the office building may be redesigned to be same in size and elevation. b. A sufficient number of self-explanatory, annotated 3D views ( at least 6 in numbers including Arial views ) of the complex at various angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations and corresponding to proposal drawings may be submitted. c. It was observed that British architectural elements and style has been used extensively in the design proposal which was not appreciated. Instead, it was suggested to explore a regular simple design approach to be adopted to represent a contemporary Indian/Delhi representative style. d. The right side elevation seems to be more appropriate ( more institutional ) than the front elevation ( more ornate ). The front elevation shall also be designed in consonance with the right side elevation. The curve at the top front elevation may be removed. The architectural elements/features/style used in the columns on the façade should have taken inspiration from Indian architecture. Also the design of the main building shall be kept minimal and symmetrical to ensure harmony in design. e. The baithak should be designed to have natural light and ventilation and not borrowed from other spaces in the house. f. It is suggested to provide connection between lounge and library on the ground floor. No part of the site shall have chamfered edges; it being a building of prime importance shall be designed with linear geometry and no negative spaces. g. The drop-off point shall have covered porch till the entry i.e. the trellis would not act as a covered entry and the same shall be replaced with a more permanent roofing element. h. The design of the boundary wall shall be made more subtle with minimal elements and light design. Presently, it is gaudy. i. Local native species shall be planted and the existing tress shall be retained as far as possible. The landscape plan should indicate the details of the trees planted, existing trees, levels, types of species on an appropriate scale, (in terms of the point nos. Six of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org to be ensured. 4. The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.
| | Not approved, observations
given. | | The Commission decided to take action in the
matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting. |
|
2 | Proposed building
plan proposal in respect of Plot no. 93, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. | | 1. The
proposal was forwarded by the South DMC ( online ) for consideration of the
Commission.
2. The
Commission accepted the concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting
held on November 13, 2020 specific observations were given.
3. The
building plan proposal received ( online ) at formal stage was scrutinised and
following observations were given: a. The
entire proposal shall adhere to all the applicable statutory provisions, and
norms/regulations of the prevailing Lutyens Bungalow Zone ( LBZ ) guidelines. 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. c. All
service equipment at the terrace should be properly camouflaged (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. | | Approved,
observations given. | | The Commission decided to take
action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the
meeting. |
|
3 | Revised layout and Building
plans proposal in respect of Group housing at Okhla industrial area Phase-I,
for Godrej Veastmark, Delhi. | | 1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC ( online ) for consideration of the Commission. 2. The Commission approve the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 07, 2018 specific observations were given. 3. The revised layout and building plans proposal ( for Tower-1, Club house and swimming pool ) received ( online ) at formal stage was scrutinised and following observations were given: a. All shops, office shall have uniform architectural controlled signages, so as to maintain uniformity and enable facade control to ensure they do not mar the aesthetics. b. The air-conditioners would be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units, at this stage, to ensure they do not mar the aesthetics. c. Innovative architectural mechanisms shall be used to screen the dish antennas and drying of clothes in the balconies. 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 should be properly camouflaged (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.
| | Approved,
observations given. | | Shri
Samir Mathur, Member, DUAC recused himself during the consideration of the
proposal. The Commission decided to take action in the matter
without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.
|
|
4 | Completion plans in
respect of ISTE Building at IIT Delhi Campus Hauz Khas, New Delhi. | | 1.
The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC ( online )
for consideration of the Commission.
2.
The Commission approved the extension ( Block-B ) to
the existing building ( Block-A ) proposal at its meeting held on October 27,
2010 and specific observations were given.
3.
The Commission did not approve the NOC for the completion
plan proposal for both the buildings ( Block-A & Block-B ) at its meeting
held on August 21, 2020 specific observations were given
4.
The Completion plan proposal received again ( online )
for both the buildings ( Block-A & Block-B ) was scrutinised along with the
replies submitted by the architect, on the observations of the Commission communicated
vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-14082058008 dated 26.08.2020 and following
observations were given a.
It was clearly evident from the replies submitted by
the architect and the record available with the Commission that no previous formal
approval for Block A had been taken from the Commission and it had already been
constructed at site without the necessary approvals of the Commission. b.
However, required formal approvals for Block B had
been taken from the Commission. It was, accordingly, decided to give NOC for completion
to Block B only. c. So
far as the NOC for completion to Block A is concerned, the Commission observed
that since the Block A had been constructed without the necessary formal
approvals from the Commission, therefore, it has no comments to offer on Block
A, at this stage and decided that the matter may be seen by the concerned local
body i.e. South DMC as per applicable rules/laws for such matters. | | Part
Completion for Block-B Approved, observations given. | | The Commission decided to take action in the matter
without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting. |
|
5 | Completion plans proposal
in respect of Research centre at C-8, Qutab Institutional Area, Katwaria Sarai,
New Delhi. | | 1. The
proposal was forwarded by the South DMC ( online ) for consideration of the
Commission.
2. The Commission approved the additions to the existing building on an
adjoining vacant land area at its meeting held on February 05, 2020 specific
observations were given. However, no information on the previous approvals
taken, if any, for the existing building was provided.
3. The completion plan proposal for the existing building received ( online
) was scrutinised and following observations were given: a. From
the record available with the Commission it was evident that no previous
formal approval seems to have been taken from the Commission and the
building had already been constructed at site. b. Also,
the Work of Public art is missing in the submission. Since the project is
at completion stage, the work of art suitable scale to the context to be
installed at site 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. c. The
Commission observed that since the building had already been constructed at
site without the necessary formal approvals from the Commission, and no
documents have been furnished to substantiate the approvals taken from the
concerned local body. The Commission decided that it has no comments to offer
at this stage and decided that the matter may be seen by the concerned local
body i.e. South DMC as per applicable rules/laws for such matters. | | NOC
not approved, observations given. | | The Commission decided to take action in the matter
without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting. |
|
6 | Building plans in
respect of commercial building and office at 13-B, Rajendra Park, Shankar Road,
New Delhi. | | 1. The
proposal was forwarded by the North DMC ( online ) for consideration of the
Commission. 2. The
building plan proposal received ( online ) at formal stage was scrutinised and
following observations were given: a. The
stilt plan shows that the circulation is not workable i.e. the turning radius
is not enough to make the entry/exit functional effectively. b. The
parking plan of the basement is incomplete. The vehicles shall be clearly
marked in the plan including their movement in the parking area. c. The
drawing shall be complete in all aspects to make the design scheme
self-explanatory. d. Air-conditioning
shafts shall be such designed that they conceal all the services. Also, they
shall be appropriately screened to ensure the services are not visible on the
façade. e. Landscape
details in the proposal are missing. The landscape plan should indicate the
details of the trees planted, existing trees, levels, types of species on an
appropriate scale, ( in terms of the point nos. Six of the CPAA (Criterion for
Project Assessment and Approval ) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org
to be ensured. f. Work
of Art is missing in the submitted design scheme. Public art of suitable scale
to the context 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 need to be made. g. All service equipment
at the terrace should be properly camouflaged (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. | | Not
approved, observations given. | | The Commission decided to take
action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the
meeting. |
|
7 | Building plans proposal
for (additions/alterations) in respect of Office-cum-Commercial Complex at plot
no.14 at Jasola for NHCC, New Delhi. | | 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 July 07, 2006 and the NOC for Completion
plan proposal was accepted on July 29, 2009. The concept of the
additions/alterations was accepted at the meeting of the Commission held on
November 06, 2020 specific observations were given.
3. The building
plan proposal for additions/alterations received ( online ) at formal stage was
scrutinised and following observation was given: a. All service equipment
at the terrace should be properly camouflaged (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. | | Approved,
observation given. | | The Commission decided to take
action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the
meeting. |
|
8 | Layout & building
Plan for Additions /Alterations ( for society office ) in Rudra CGHS, Plot No.
12, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi. | | 1. The
proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration of the
Commission. 2. Earlier,
the Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on
January 10, 1997 and the proposal for additions/alterations was approved at the
meeting held on December 12, 2018. 3. The
addition/alteration proposal ( for addition of society office only) received ( online ) at formal stage was
scrutinised and found acceptable. | | Approved,
observations given. | | The Commission decided to take
action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the
meeting. |
|
9 | Permission for the
installation of a Bust of Late Shri Arun Jaitley at Shri Arun Jaitley park, New
Delhi. | | 1. The
proposal was forwarded by the DDA ( online ) for consideration of the
Commission.
2. The
formal proposal for installing bust received ( online ) was scrutinised and
following observations were given: a. It
was observed that the bust is placed in the centre of the park, and thus a lot
of space is wasted. Also the location is such that it does not get good
sunlight. Thus, it was suggested to move it further 4 to 5 meters closer to the
tree line for better location, viewing angles and better aesthetics. The bust
should be South facing so that sunlight falls on the statue. b. Also the plantation
around the bust should be reduced as it is distracting from the main figure. | | Approved,
observations given. | | The Commission decided to take
action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the
meeting. |
|
10 | Revised building
plans proposal in respect of Residential building at 7 Hailey Road, New Delhi. | | 1. The
proposal was forwarded by the NDMC ( online ) for consideration of the
Commission.
2. The
Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 31,
2016 and the revised plan proposal was approved on February 15, 2017.
3. Now,
the revised building plan proposal received ( online ) was scrutinised and
following observations were given: a. Location
of existing trees, as shown on the building plans, shall be retained. b. All service equipment
at the terrace should be properly camouflaged (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. | | Approved,
observations given. | | Shri
Abhimanyu Dalal, Member, DUAC recused himself during the consideration of the
proposal. The Commission decided to take
action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the
meeting.
|
|
11 | Building plans proposal
in respect of Dispensary-Cum-Diagnostic Centre for Employees State Insurance
Corporation at Mayur Vihar Phase-1, Delhi. | | 1. The
proposal was forwarded by the CPWD ( online ) for consideration of the
Commission.
2. The
Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on
November 06, 2020 specific observations were given.
3. The
revised building plan proposal received ( online ) at formal stage was
scrutinised and following observations were given: a. The
parking shown as P2 shall be suitably relocated behind the area available in P1
parking lot so as the space is freed for consolidated greens. The space shall then
be appropriately landscaped. b. All service equipment
at the terrace should be properly camouflaged (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. | | Approved,
observations given. | | The Commission decided to take
action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the
meeting. |
|