MINUTES OF THE 1597th MEETING (ONLINE) OF THE DELHI URBAN ART COMMISSION (DUAC) HELD ON THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2021

A.   The minutes of the 1596th meeting (online) of the Delhi Urban Art Commission held on 10.06.2021 were confirmed and approved.

SL. No.PROPOSALOBSERVATIONS /SUGGESTIONSDECISIONREMARKS

B.ACTION TAKEN REPORT IN RESPECT OF MINUTES OF 1595TH MEETING HELD ON 03.06.2021.1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1595th meeting held on 03.06.2021 was discussed.Noted by the Commission.

C. PROJECT PROPOSALS:

1REVISED LAYOUT AND BUILDING PLANS IN RESPECT OF K.K. BIRLA ACADEMY AT PLOT NO.2, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, VASANT KUNJ.

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 05, 2007.

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

a) The quality of 3d views is not appropriate. They are very sketchy and shall be enhanced with better visuals. The scale, proportion, materials etc. are not understood clearly. Annotated 3D views clearly specifying the materials to be used on the façade shall be provided, and superimposed on the existing context of the surroundings, including road networks, structures around the site, for better understanding of the proposal in the realistic environment to make it clearer.

b) The proposal has been submitted at formal stage without elevations and sections, and it was not appreciated by the Commission. Detailed elevations with details of appropriate architectural elements used throughout along with the façade materials, its application etc. to be submitted. Also, a scheme for protection of openings from harsh weather conditions (rain & sun etc.) shall be submitted.

c) An appropriate number of detailed drawings of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) be provided to understand the scheme clearly. The material application on the facades is unclear and needs to be explained by submitting annotated and labelled 3d views. Also, the skin sections (in detail with 3D views) shall be submitted to understand the material application on the façade. Jaali work on the façade wherever used, a blow-up detail, including its fixing details, maintenance etc. shall be given to make it clearer.

d) The design does not have a welcoming/inviting entry to the complex. The architect is advised to revise the design with a more welcoming entry.

e) Air conditioning mechanisms of the complex shall be detailed and highlighted in the scheme along with its screening as these could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor AC units, if any, at this stage so as not to mar the aesthetics later. A scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views.

f) The parking does not seem to be very efficient and functional. The parking plan needs to be detailed, i.e. it needs to mark the location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. in each parking lot. The site seems to be vehicle oriented rather than pedestrian friendly. Therefore, Road network needs to be minimised by redesign and the tarred surface to be reduced to minimize heat island effect. Surface parking shall be removed and relocated in the basement and the available spaces be used judiciously like landscaping/greenery.

g) Continuous pedestrian movement, from entry/exit, through the whole complex with its linkages, other facilities for the convenient movement of the users, to be appropriately landscaped, covered/ shaded walkways, in the site shall be established and indicated on the plans. Appropriate signage/ graphics shall be installed throughout the site at various locations to ensure proper wayfinding.

h) The green areas in the site are fragmented and scattered. The site being a museum & research centre shall lay more emphasis on the efficient landscaping. Native species shall be planted in the site with appropriate landscaping elements. Also, it shall have pedestrian friendly connections throughout the campus.

i) Submitted landscape plans lack clarity in explaining the landscape scheme. The landscaping in the site to be improved with appropriate treatment (Hardscape & Softscape). Where ever possible consolidated greens shall be established and need to be shown clearly in the drawings, 3D views. They shall be submitted in the respective drawings, shall 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.

j) The capacity of the café to be mentioned along with a detailed solid waste management plan for the waste producing areas.

k) Internal layout arrangement of the office space to be given in the submission. Also, the movement pattern inside the gallery (it being a public space) to be clearly mapped for more clarity on effective functioning of spaces.

l) The design of the gate and the boundary wall has a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex, the same is missing in the submission. The gate and the boundary wall detail, including plans/elevations/sections/3D views, as appropriate shall be provided.

m) The 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.

n) The elements of sustainability shall be identified and marked on the plans. 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.

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

Not approved, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

2BUILDING PLANS IN RESPECT OF IOCL PETROL PUMP AT PLOT NO. 3 A-BLOCK, SANJAY GANDHI TRANSPORT NAGAR, PHASE-I.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 20, 2019 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-16031923018 dated 25.03.2019. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted following observations are to be complied with:

a) The architect has submitted three options for the work of art. In order of preference option number three & two is acceptable.

b) Location shown for pollution and air check machines shall be swapped for better functionality.

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

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.

Approved, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

3BUILDING PLANS IN RESPECT OF PLOT NO. 1769, NEW OLD NO. 2285 TO 2315 AT WARD NO. XI, KUCHA DAKHNI RAI, DARYAGANJ.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on November 27, 2020 specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised, and the Commission desired to discuss the proposal with the architect (online) through Cisco Web Ex meetings but he was not available. The proposal 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-24112023048 dated 03.12.2020. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission reiterated its earlier observation that the façade of the building looks very contemporary and is not contextual to the surroundings i.e. does not match the heritage character of Shahjahanabad. Thus, the use of materials be used judiciously and explore the possibility of using either Agra sandstone, Dholpur sandstone, Delhi stone, or other natural material similar to the character of the Old Delhi.

b) Outdoor air conditioning units could be an eye-sore to the building façade. Appropriate screening mechanisms shall be ensured for its screening so as not to mar the aesthetics.

c) All service equipment at the terrace should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the 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.

4BUILDING PLANS FOR ADD./ALTS. IN RESPECT OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AT PLOT NO. 26, FEROZSHAH ROAD.

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

2. The Commission approved the revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on October 21, 1999 and the NOC for completion plan proposal was approved in the meeting held on May 31, 2001.

3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations received (online) was scrutinised and following observations are to be complied with:

a) Same architectural elements, features, materials etc. shall be ensured in the additions/alterations to maintain cohesiveness of the overall façade.

b) All service equipment at the terrace should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the 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.

5BUILDING PLANS FOR ADD./ALTS. IN RESPECT OF COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT PLOT NO.7, DISTRICT CENTRE AT LAXMI NAGAR.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on October 16, 2020 specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal for addition/alterations 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-07102022053 dated 21.10.2020. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted following observations are to be complied with:

a) The added 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 firmly to the building and does not impact the safety of the superstructure.

b) The proposal is part of the various buildings in the District Centre Laxmi Nagar. Same architectural elements, features, materials etc. shall be ensured in the additions/alterations to maintain cohesiveness of the overall façade. It was suggested to ensure uniformity in elevation of the entire complex including signage, hoardings etc. so as not to mar the aesthetics.

c) All outdoor pipes/plumbing pipes on the façade, service equipment at the terrace should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the 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.

6PLANS IN RESPECT OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AT PLOT NO. 206, GOLF LINKS.

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

2. The building plan proposal for demolition of the existing structure and a new construction received (online) was scrutinised and following observations are to be complied with:

a) The entire proposal shall adhere to all the applicable statutory provisions, and norms/regulations of the prevailing Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ) guidelines.

b) Main entry gate shall be of appropriate width to ensure convenient car movement.

c) Outdoor air conditioning units could be an eye-sore to the building façade, appropriate screening shall be ensured for its screening so as not to mar the aesthetics.

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

Approved, observations givenThe Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

7REVISED BUILDING PLANS IN ADD./ALTS. OF VAIGAI-TAMILNADU ILLAM AT TAMILNADU HOUSE AT 6, 7, 8, KAUTILYA MARG, CHANAKYAPURI.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout plan in respect of State Guest house complex in the meeting of the Commission held on November 05, 1993 and the revised layout was approved in the meeting held on February 21, 2000. The building plans were also approved in the meeting held on February 21, 2000, and the NOC for completion plan proposal was approved in the meeting held on January 29, 2004.

3. The revised layout and building plan proposal for additions/alterations 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-13052124011 dated 25.05.2021 and following observations are to be complied with:

a) Provisions made for the work of art on each and every panel of the boundary wall shall be reconsidered and instead alternative panels may be used. The stone (Dholpur) shall be replaced with a stone (Granite/appropriate stone of any colour) to reflect the character and identity of the State of Tamilnadu.

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 camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the 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.

8PLANS IN RESPECT OF REDEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOL COMPLEX AT LODHI ROAD.

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

2. The building plan proposal received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised and following observations are to be complied with:

a) Universal accessibility shall be ensured throughout the school campus including internal areas as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

b) Parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc. including car circulation for double stack parking.

c) It is understood that most of the classrooms may not be air-conditioned, but we can preplan for potential additions in future including the administrative areas, principal rooms etc. which could be using separate air-conditioning units. Air-conditioners/outdoor units 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.

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) DG sets etc. shall ensured to be screened including all service equipment at the terrace should 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.

Approved, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

9BUILDING PLANS IN RESPECT OF SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL AT VASANT KUNJ (CONCEPTUAL STAGE).

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

2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The 3D views have been submitted without annotations thus making it difficult to comprehend the materials etc. on the façade. 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 better understanding of the proposal.

b) The site planning has not been done resourcefully. The ground coverage, FAR etc. shall be used judiciously taking into consideration the futuristic requirements of the site including parking provisions.

c) It has been observed that the staircase and the lifts are accessed through a common door. The two shall be segregated. The staircases and the lifts shall as per applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc. Also, the possibility be explored to relocate the lifts to other side (west side, due to its proximity to the multipurpose hall) for better use and functioning.

d) It is understood that most of the classrooms may not be air-conditioned, but we can preplan for potential additions in future including the administrative areas, principal rooms etc. which could be using separate air-conditioning units. Air-conditioners/outdoor units 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.

e) An appropriate number of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) shall be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

f) The placement of parking provided in the stilt area was not appreciated by the Commission. Alternative option for basement shall be explored to relocate parking from the stilt area and the freed-up space to be put to judicious uses.

g) The design of the gate and the boundary wall would have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex, thus a detailed section complete in all respect shall be provided including DPC, fixing of the grill, material applications etc.

h) Universal accessibility shall be ensured throughout the school campus including internal areas as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

i) 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.

j) 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.

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

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

The concept of the proposal accepted, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

10BUILDING PLANS IN RESPECT OF SARVODYA BAL VIDYALAYA (SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL) AT 330 MATHURA ROAD, TEHKHAND, OKHLA PHASE-I. (CONCEPTUAL STAGE).

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

2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The 3D views have been submitted without annotations making it difficult to comprehend the materials etc. on the façade understand. 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 better understanding of the proposal.

b) Inconsistency observed in the submitted proposal, 3D views do not match with the plans which do not impart accurate depiction of the proposal. The same shall be revised, correlated with other relevant details and resubmitted.

c) The elevations have been submitted without labelling, making it difficult to comprehend the same, needs to be revised with proper labelling and be resubmitted.

d) The site planning has not been done resourcefully. The ground coverage, FAR etc. shall be used judiciously taking into consideration the future requirements of the site including parking provisions.

e) It is understood that most of the classrooms may not be air-conditioned, but we can preplan for potential additions in future including the administrative areas, principal rooms etc. which could be using separate air-conditioning units. Air-conditioners/outdoor units could 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, so as not to mar the aesthetics.

f) An appropriate number of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) shall be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

g) The placement of parking arrangements made in the stilt area was not appreciated by the Commission. Alternative option for basement shall be explored to relocate parking from the stilt area and the freed-up space to be put to judicious use.

h) The design of the gate and the boundary wall would have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex, a detailed section complete in all respect shall be provided including DPC, fixing of the grill, material applications etc.

i) Universal accessibility shall be ensured throughout the school campus including internal areas as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

j) An appropriate number of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) shall be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with 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.

l) 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.

m) All service equipment at the terrace should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org using the same architectural elements and materials.

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

The concept of the proposal not accepted, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

The following were present at the Meeting (online) of the Commission held on Thursday, June 17, 2021, from 02.30 PM onwards:

1. Shri Ajit Pai, Chairman, DUAC
2. Prof. (Dr) Mandeep Singh, Member, DUAC
3. Shri Ashutosh Agarwal, Member, DUAC
4. Smt. Nivedita Pande, Member, DUAC