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

2.  The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 04, 2020 specific observations were given.

3.  Now, the revised building plan proposal received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised and following observations were given:

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.

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

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

2.  The Commission did not approve the layout & building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 24, 2020 specific observations were given.

3.  The revised layout & building plan proposal received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect and following observations were given:

a.    The Commission observed that in terms of the earlier observation of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-14072061012 dated 31.07.2020 indicated at sr. no. 2 ( a, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n ) it was observed inadequate compliances for this have been given.

b.    The Commission reiterated its earlier observations given at its meeting held on July 24, 2020 that considering the usages, scale of the project, the architect/proponent, may consider to put up the proposals for approval in the following manner:

i. Master Plan of the entire scheme.

ii. Plans, Elevations, Sections and other details of Individual blocks. 

c.    The Master plan ( Layout Plan )  for the site is suggested to be redone with zoning, where the use zones are segregated keeping in mind principles of pedestrian connectivity, walkability, continuous pedestrian movement, from entry/exit, through the whole complex with its linkages, other facilities for the convenient movement of the users/students, integrated building blocks for better aesthetics, etc.

4. The architect was advised to re-design/re-look the entire complex, with a fresh approach taking into consideration the observations made above and furnish a point wise reply.

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 October 05, 2016, but did not approve the revised building plan proposal at its meeting held on November 20, 2020 and specific observations were given.

3.  The revised building plan 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 intent of the design scheme, and provided clarifications to the queries of the Members related to elevation façade, architectural features etc. However, based on the detailed discussion and the revised building plan proposal submitted along with the replies submitted in compliance to the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-17112024035 dated 26.11.2020 following observations were given:

a. To make the elevations more coherent and maintain a consistency in the elevation façade, it was suggested that the proposed brown band to be continued till the top and not be ended abruptly. Simultaneously, the fins proposed shall be carried on to the ground floor and should not be left midway.

b. Mural ‘A’ to be removed. Work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at appropriate level ( human eye ) which is also visible from outside, to be installed.

c.  The design of the windows is suggested to be recessed so as to include the services/air-conditioning out-door units and also ensure they are not visible in the façade at a later stage. The fins shall be integrated in the design by including as a part of the window detail.

4.  The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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

2.  The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 14, 2020 and specific observations were given.

3.  The revised building plan proposal received ( online ) at formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted in compliance to the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: 16(1)/2020-DUAC dated August 20, 2020 following observations were given:

a.  The Stilt parking seems to be not working appropriately. It is suggested to accommodate the parking elsewhere and utilise the stilt space as community/social space for the residents. A provision shall be made for toilets and sitting area for maids/guards/drivers in the stilt area of every block.

b.  To avoid the conflict between the pedestrian and the vehicular movement, it was suggested to flip the porch provided at the drop off points of the individual blocks so that the vehicular movement is restricted at the rear.

c.   The provision made for boundary wall between green areas; volleyball court etc. shall be removed so that the green area is extended till the residential blocks for the convenient use of the residents.

4.  The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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

2.   The Commission approved the layout & building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 20, 2002 and the proposal for NOC was approved at the meeting held on October 07, 2009.

3.   The building plan proposal for additions/alterations received (online) was scrutinised and following observations were given:

a.  The balconies need to be screened appropriately along with the provision of screening of drying clothes. Innovative architectural features and materials shall screen dish antennas in the balconies.  

b.  The provision of plumbing shaft/ arrangement shall be provided at the design stage to avoid future discrepancies. It shall be ensured that the pipes are appropriately screened so that they are not exposed on the outer façade and mar the aesthetics, need to be clearly marked on the plans/elevations/3D views etc., along with appropriate means of screening.

c.  Existing photographs clearly indicate the presence of air-conditioning units on the external facade of the existing units. Innovative design provision shall be made in the design itself at this stage to accommodate the outdoor units, so as not to mar the overall aesthetics of the complex. The scheme shall be shown clearly on the plans/elevations and 3D views.

d.  All encroachments/extensions/corrugated sheets, covering of balconies with temporary materials etc. in the building structures shall be removed.

e.  Provision of proposed parking not clearly understood. It needs to be clearly indicated in appropriate plans and other parking details, location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. Existing parking and the parking from additional FAR ( proposed ) to be shown clearly on the layout plan with the bifurcation of two.

f.  The added balcony structure shall be such designed that it withstands weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquake etc. as it is an additional structure added to the existing superstructure. It shall be ensured it is braced strongly to the building and does not impact the safety of the superstructure while addition/alteration.

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.

h.  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.

4.   The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations in the formal submission to be submitted subsequently 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 concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on October 22, 2020 specific observations were given.

3.  The revised conceptual building plan proposal received ( online ) was scrutinised along with the replies to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-14102027074 dated 27.10.2020 and following observations were given:

a.    To bring coherence in the elevation façade, the North-East side elevational façade shall also be made consistent to the South-West façade by removing the triangular pattern made on the elevation. The stand out brown color appears to be very bold for the building and thus needs to be made subtle or replace with a better colour combination including white or monochromatic.

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.

4.  The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations in the formal submission to be submitted subsequently 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 concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on November 06, 2019 specific observations were given.

3.   The revised conceptual building plan proposal received ( online ) was scrutinised along with the replies to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-22101927117 dated 14.11.2019 and following observations were given:

a.  The proposed work of art on the façade is not appropriate and therefore, a work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at appropriate level ( human eye ) which is also visible from outside, to be installed, preferably in the form of a sculpture.

b.  Provisions for Air-conditioning units shall be made in the design at this stage by exploring innovative design mechanisms to accommodate the outdoor units, so as not to mar the overall aesthetics of the complex.

c.  Columns piercing through the semi-circular arch in the front façade appear to be too absorptive and need to be relooked at.

d.  All the balconies shall be screened appropriately for the safety and privacy of the users.

e.  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.

f.  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.

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

2.  The Commission did not accept the concept of the Master plan/layout of the proposal at its meeting held on October 01, 2020 specific observations were given.

3.  The revised conceptual Master plan/layout plan of the proposal received        ( online ) was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx Meetings, wherein the architect explained the overall intent of the design scheme, and provided clarifications to the queries of the Members related to traffic, vehicular & pedestrian circulation network, foot prints of the building blocks shown in the submission,  inconsistency in the submission etc. However, based on the detailed discussion and the revised Master plan/layout plan proposal submitted along with the replies in compliance to the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-19092027071 dated 08.10.2020 following observations were given:

a.      It was observed that in terms of earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-19092027071 dated 08.10.2020 indicated at sr. no. 3 ( a, b, c, d, e, g ) inadequate compliances for this have been given.

b.     It was observed that though the submission is for the Master plan/layout plan but the building block have been shown in the submission. The submission is very conceptual and the scheme is not clearly understood due to lack of detailed drawings. The architect is advised to submit detailed drawings at a scale of not more than 1:500 to appreciate and comment on the scheme.

c.      The circulation pattern and path for pedestrian movement in each plot to be marked clearly in legitimate drawings, clearly highlighting a conflict free movement pattern for the pedestrians. The vehicular circulation network shall be clearly indicated with markings for direction of the vehicles.

d.     The pedestrian connections across various plots shall be explained with the help of appropriate sections. The connections of the same to the building footprints shall be clearly marked to show conflict free movement. Elements like table top, pedestrian crossings etc. shall be marked appropriately in the respective plans. The architect is suggested to explore options of underground connections which are sunken and not subways which are unsafe for use.

e.      The vehicular circulation is varying in different slides, the same may be corrected, correlated and resubmitted. 

f.       It was suggested to create a pedestrian plaza between plots 3 and 4 by creating sunken connections. This will enable to integrate the plots and also create barrier free access for the visitors.

g.      The form of the building seems too conceptual, and not functional. The thick, slanting columns are too bulky and their purpose is not clear in the submitted design scheme. The form does not seem to achieve efficiency in the design as it does not convey function and working of the various buildings appropriately.

4.  The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations 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 concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on November 06, 2020 and specific observations were given.

3.   The revised layout and building plan proposal received ( online) at conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the replies in compliance to the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-04112027082 dated 11.11.2020 following observations were given:

a.    It was observed that in terms of earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-04112027082 dated 11.11.2020 indicated at sr. no. 2 E ( a ) inadequate compliances for this have been given.

b.   Inadequate scheme/drawings for stabling yard ( except operational areas) have been provided unable to comprehend the proposal clearly. The same shall be correlated and resubmitted for clarity and better understanding of the proposal.

4. The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.