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 19, 2004. NOC for completion plan proposal was accepted in the meeting of the Commission held on March 09, 2011.

3.  The layout and building plan proposal for extension at Madhyanchal Bhawan received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a)  Reference given for the proposed site and the existing site in the slide submitted for the site surroundings is not understood needs clarifications.

b)  The 3D views of the interior areas submitted for reception lobby, waiting areas, restaurant etc. does not correlate with the design scheme submitted for consideration, needs clarification and the corrected views shall be submitted for review.

c)  The vehicular ingress and outgress at the entry/exit points to the basement appears to be inappropriate especially with the presence of two structural columns, it needs reconsideration. The vehicle circulation pattern in the basement is unclear i.e. It does not clearly define the vehicle movement. The parking plan shall be clear in all respect and shall include all the relevant details to make it self-explanatory.

d)  The proposal is an extension to the existing built structure. The parking plan needs to be detailed, i.e. it needs to mark the location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. The parking provisions made in the basement need to be detailed with the location of cars and its movement pattern. Also, the existing parking and the parking from additional FAR (proposed) to be shown clearly on the layout plan with the bifurcation of two.

e)  Air-conditioning mechanism of the building is not clear. The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade thereby spoiling the aesthetics of the facade. Innovative design provisions shall be made in the design to house air-conditioners, etc. so as not to mar the aesthetics, and it shall be ensured that the pipes are appropriately screened so that they are not exposed on the outer façade.

f)  The work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the building, at an appropriate level (human eye) to be installed.

g)  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. 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)  All service equipment including DG set exhaust pipes etc should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the 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 using the same architectural elements and materials.

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 by the Commission.

2.  The proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a new block-IV and addition of two floors above on an existing block (block-III)) received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a)  The architect/proponent has indicated that three superstructures (blocks -I, II & III) have already been constructed at site between the year 1968 and 1990. However, no proof/documentation to substantiate that statement was furnished. However, no such record was available with the Commission as well.

b)  The 3D views have been submitted without annotations thus making it difficult to comprehend the materials etc. on the façade, which could have a bearing on the visual, urban aesthetics of the complex. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (at least 6 in numbers), at various angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations and corresponding to proposal drawings be submitted for a better understanding of the proposal.

c)  The Commission observed that the site already has three existing built structures. The façade proposed for the new block lacks harmony and integration. It is suggested that the architectural vocabulary of the entire complex be maintained for consistency. Alternatively, architect has an opportunity to make alternate options for the proposed façade in the current context, considering construction of the existing built superstructures was done between 1968 and 1990. It needs to be redesigned using appropriate architectural elements which shall also provide protection from harsh weather conditions (rain & sun etc.).

d)  It has been mentioned that air-conditioning units shall be installed but the provision proposed on the façade is not given in the proposal (drawings/3d views). The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, provision shall be made to accommodate the outdoor units, so as not to mar the aesthetics, and it shall be ensured that the pipes are appropriately screened so that they are not exposed on the outer façade.

e)  The car parking provisions made in the stilts area are not understood clearly. The parking plan needs to be detailed, i.e., it needs to mark the location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. to have a clear understanding of the functioning of the stilt floor. Road network to be minimised.

f)  The proposal is for additions/alterations a lot of requisite parking requirements from the existing and the proposed needs to be accommodated in the site. Most of the available open green space has been converted into surface parking. Resulting into the site having negligible green/open spaces for users and marring the overall visual, urban, environmental, and aesthetic quality of the complex. The complex being a building for public use shall have some meaningful green spaces to ensure its use by visitors/users. Alternative mechanisms shall be explored (including creating basements under block-IV) to accommodate all the existing and proposed parking requirements of the proposal without compromising areas meant for pedestrian and vehicular circulation.

g)  Also, the peripheral greens shall be maintained to increase the green cover in the complex. Existing parking and the parking from additional FAR (proposed) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with the bifurcation of two.

h)  A signage policy shall be adopted in the site to maintain uniformity and enable facade control.

i)  The complex should aim to maximise energy efficiency with the appropriate use of the solar panels on building rooftops etc. and screen them by using appropriate architectural mechanisms. 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.in.

j)  Location of services including transformers, generator, exhaust pipes etc., shall be marked on the site and shall be appropriately screened to maintain urban aesthetics. All plumbing pipes/sanitary pipes, outdoor AC units, and service equipment should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the 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. using the same architectural elements and materials.

k)  The work of art is missing in the submission.  Work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the building, at an appropriate level (human eye) which is also visible from the outside, to be installed.

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

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

2.  The Commission did not approve the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 23, 2021 specific observations were given.

3.  The revised layout (for phase-I & II) and building plans proposal (for phase-I) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-15072155030 dated 27.07.2021, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx Meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission on various aspects related to the proposal. Based on the detailed discussion held 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) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

b)  All plumbing pipes, service equipment should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the 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 did not approve the building plans proposal for addition/alterations in (Service apartment tower (Svelte Hotel)) at its meeting held on August 19, 2021 specific observations were given.

3.  The layout and building plans in respect of district centre Saket (2nd stage approval of architectural controls) were approved by the Commission at its meeting held on December 30, 1996. The layout and building plan proposal in respect of Shopping-cum-multiplex at plot no. A3 & P1B was approved by the Commission at its meeting held on January 20, 2005. The revised plans in respect of Shopping-cum-multiplex at plot no. A3 & P1B were accepted by the Commission at its meeting held on May 08, 2006. The Commission approved the proposal for additions/alterations (for approval of enhancement of FAR) including modifications in Basement-01 (two anchor stores added), modification in Basement-03(Chiller plant Room provided), modifications in Ground floor (area over ramp added to accommodate toilets, escalators added at the entrance connecting Ground floor & a basement, addition of a lift at the entrance to provide access to third floor, addition of two sets of external staircases), modifications in first floor (terraces converted to commercial, addition of two sets of external staircases), modifications in Second floor (terrace converted to commercial, addition of a bridge,  bridge at Grid 1-3 converted to commercial, bridge at Grid J-K converted to commercial, bridge at Grid 11-12‘ converted to male & female toilets), modifications in third floor (commercial proposed, shifting of skylight from second to third floor) at its meeting held on October 16, 2019 specific observations were given.

4.  The building plan proposal for addition/alterations (addition of two floors (eight & ninth floor above), including two main staircases & three lifts) in Service apartment tower (Svelte Hotel) at Plot no. A3 received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx Meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission on various aspects related to the proposal for not complying with the previous observations of the Commission  communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-16082122027 dated 25.08.2021  inadequate compliances for these have been provided. However, based on the detailed discussion held and submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a)  The Commission observed that the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-16082122027 dated 25.08.2021 indicated at sr. no. 3(a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j), 4 & 5 inadequate compliances for these have been provided.

b)  In absence of sufficient information provided by the architect/proponent, the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission and commented upon.

5.  In view of the above, the architect was advised to adhere to the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply, and ensure that submission complete in all respect shall be provided for the consideration of the Commission.

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

2.  The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 02, 2021 specific observations were given.

3.  The revised building plan proposal received (online) at 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-27082161025 dated 08.09.2021. Based on the response received, and revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a)  The Commission observed that the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-27082161025 dated 08.09.2021 inadequate compliances for these have been provided.

b)  In absence of sufficient information provided by the architect/proponent, the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission.

4.  In view of the above, the architect was advised to adhere to the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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

2.  The building plan proposal received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised, 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 plumbing pipes, service equipment should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the 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 proposal was deferred.

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

2.  The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 19, 2021 specific observations were given.

3.  The revised building plan proposal received (online) at 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-17082161019 dated 25.08.2021. Based on the response received, and revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a)  The Commission observed that the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-17082161019 dated 25.08.2021 inadequate compliances for these have been provided.

b)  In absence of sufficient information provided by the architect/proponent, the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission.

4.  In view of the above, the architect was advised to adhere to the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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

2.  The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 19, 2021 specific observations were given.

3.  The revised building plan proposal received (online) at 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-17082161020 dated 25.08.2021. Based on the response received, and revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a)  The Commission observed that the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-17082161020 dated 25.08.2021 inadequate compliances for these have been provided.

b)  In absence of sufficient information provided by the architect/proponent, the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission.

4.  In view of the above, the architect was advised to adhere to the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.