MINUTES OF THE 1623rd MEETING OF THE DELHI URBAN ART COMMISSION (DUAC) HELD ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2021.

A.   The minutes of the 1621st meeting and 1622nd (Extraordinary) meeting of the Delhi Urban Art Commission held on 03.11.2021 were confirmed and approved.

SL. No.PROPOSALOBSERVATIONS /SUGGESTIONSDECISIONREMARKS

B.Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1620th meeting held on 27.10.2021.
  1. Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of 1620th meeting held on 27.10.2021 were discussed.
Noted by the Commission.

C. PROJECT PROPOSALS:

1Completion plans proposal in respect of Redevelopment of Residential Quarters at Hauz Khas.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 11, 2016, and the layout of the proposal was approved in the meeting held on June 01, 2016. The Commission did not accept the NOC for completion plan proposal at its meeting held on July 29, 2021, specific observations were given.

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

a. It was observed that in terms of earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-26072158016 dated 03.08.2021 indicated at sr. no. 3 (a, b, c, d, e) and 4, no compliances for this has been given.

b. The Commission again reiterated its earlier observations and observed that an appropriate number of photographs of the completed superstructure (for which NOC for completion is required) shall be provided with proper labelling/delineation and uncut/clear photographs from all sides to substantiate an actual work executed at the site.

c. In absence of the sufficient information provided by the architect, the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission.

4. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission including earlier observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-26072158016 dated 03.08.2021 indicated at sr. no. 3 (a, b, c, d, e) and 4 and furnish its pointwise incorporation/reply.

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

2Building plans proposal in respect of additions/alterations of Commercial/residential building at Plot no. 173-176 Katra Badiyan, Fatehpuri, Chandni Chowk.

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

2. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of structural column arrangements on the ground floor, additions/alterations on the first floor (demolition of some part), the addition of residential units on the second and third floor) on an existing building comprising of commercial use on the ground and first floor received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and it was observed that no previous record of the approval (formal) taken from DUAC was available with the Commission, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. It was observed that the Performa indicating the Development Control Regulations details are not self-explanatory. The area of the plot is not clear. As the proposal is for additions/alterations, therefore, in absence of the information related to Development Control Regulations related to the proposal, it would be difficult to comprehend the proposal.

b. The 3D view has 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 self-explanatory, annotated 3D view clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations and corresponding to proposal drawings be submitted for a better understanding of the proposal.

c. Existing site photographs should clearly indicate the concerned property.

d. The proposal has been submitted for the addition of two more floors (second and third) above the existing superstructure. From the photographs submitted it is evident that the existing superstructure is in a dilapidated condition. A lot of live/dead load is being added to the existing building. The structure shall be such designed that it can withstand weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes etc. and can withstand the additional load.

e. A functional detailed furniture layout for all the floor plans be provided for a better understanding of the functioning of the design scheme. Toilets shall be provided with the location of fixtures along with a scheme for screening of plumbing pipes etc.

f. The provision of air-conditioning units 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, the provision shall be made to accommodate the outdoor units, so as not to mar the aesthetics.

g. The proposal has been submitted at the formal stage and very basic elevations & sections have been provided. The elevations and sections need to be detailed clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. The same shall be co-related with appropriate 3D views.

h. All requisite parking provisions shall be as per applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

i. 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. All 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.

3. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory. The proposal is submitted for the formal stage needs to be complete and comprehensive.

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.

3Building plans proposal in respect of Demolition and Reconstruction at Plot no. 51 Golf Links.

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

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

a. The Commission observed that provision of spiral staircases has been given at the rear, but the same is not reflected in any of the 3D views & elevation/sections etc.  provided for the consideration of the Commission. It could have a bearing on the visual and aesthetics of the area. Thus, it shall be co-related and re-submitted.

b. The design scheme for a boundary wall and the entrance gate is missing in the design scheme. It could 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.).

c. All requisite parking provisions shall be as per applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc. and be shown in the relevant drawings as appropriate.

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

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.in.

f. All 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.

3. 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.

4Building plans proposal in respect of Multi-Level Car Parking at District Centre Nehru Place.

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

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

a. The proposal has been submitted for building plans proposal in respect of Multi-Level Car Parking at the formal stage. But the architect has submitted a project report with the following title:

“…..Upgradation of District Centre at Nehru Place and construction of MLCP…. With         refurbishment and overall improvement with…

i. Plaza & Amphitheatre

ii. Parking and landscaping

iii. Traffic circulation

iv. Accessibility & ease of movement

v. Public facilities………Including proposal for a skywalk, lifts and escalators for skywalk, park, plaza seating, 12 toilet blocks, ola/uber taxi drop points, improvement of existing staircases etc… ”

It is evident that there is inconsistency, as the title of the proposal and the submitted design scheme do not match each other, hence needs clarification and corrected/correlated design scheme shall be submitted for the consideration of the Commission.

b. The Commission observed that the proposal is set at an important location in Delhi and opines that it cannot be studied in isolation i.e. it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, 3D views of the proposal shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings including road networks, structures around the site, for better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.

c. Also, the proposal being of a large scale and situated in an important surrounding context needs to be examined carefully, in a detailed manner so as it can be used as a case example for future developments of District Centres in the city. Thus, all aspects of urban, environmental, visual and aesthetics are to be considered for examining.

d. Considering the scale and size of the proposal an extensive number of photographs of the existing development of the site shall be provided to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides. An appropriate number of annotated site photographs clearly showing the existing site conditions, including existing buildings on the site, be given to understand the extent and the type of existing construction.

e. An appropriate number of 3-d views/elevations/sections for all blocks including parking, MLCP, plazas, amphitheatre, common areas, staircases, toilet blocks, services etc. (from all angles), to be provided, so that the scheme can be appreciated by the Commission. The views should be set in the existing surrounding to provide detail and clarity.

f. The Commission observed that the overall façade of the existing buildings is in a dilapidated condition. From the upgradation design scheme submitted it is not clear whether these areas are also considered in the upgradation scheme. All modifications in the design including facade Upliftment, additional architectural elements, features etc. in all buildings shall be supplemented in the design scheme. Along with the details of the façade including material, form, colour, architectural elements to be given for all individual blocks as the existing buildings are very old and have varied characters. As the proposal mentions refurbishment, the above-mentioned details shall be provided for efficient examination.

g. The outdoor air conditioners are protruding out all over the façade of the existing buildings spoiling the visual and aesthetics of the complex. To avoid the same, provisions shall be made to accommodate the outdoor units appropriately 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.

h. An appropriate number of site sections (end to end of the proposed scheme) be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

i. Seamless pedestrian movement shall be ensured throughout the site, which shall be linked to all parts of the complex (internal and external). A combined mobility plan showing a seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plan from outside to the various parts of the district centre to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern better. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement. All details shall be marked clearly on respective layout plans. 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.

j. Space for informal vendors to be clearly marked in the respective layout plan. Details of street furniture and supporting facilities are to be provided so as to explain the scheme better.

k. It was observed that a total of 12 public toilets, a skywalk, lifts and escalators for skywalk, park, plaza seating, 12 toilet blocks, ola/uber taxi drop points, improvement of existing staircases etc. have been proposed and are also part of the formal submission but their detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have not been submitted. The Commission observed that these components have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex. The same is to be revised appropriately and be incorporated for review by the Commission.

l. Details of the proposed skywalks including details of entry/exit points, covering details, other street furniture inside the skywalk etc. to be supplemented in the proposal.

m.  A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) is supposed to be generated in the complex, a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location/screening on the site plan shall be submitted.

n. A signage policy shall be adopted on the site to maintain uniformity and enable facade control. Proper signages are to be provided throughout the site at various locations to ensure proper wayfinding.

o. 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.

p. A public art zoning plan is ensured which indicates the placement of all work of Art in the site as per its context, location etc. Work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level (human eye) which is also visible from outside, 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.in.

q. Submitted landscape plans lack clarity in explaining the landscape scheme. They shall indicate the details of the trees planted, types of species on an appropriate scale, (in terms of the point nos. Six of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

r. All plumbing pipes/sanitary pipes, outdoor AC units, and service equipment including DG Set, its exhaust pipe, generator, ESS 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.

3. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory. The proposal being submitted for the formal stage needs to be complete and comprehensive. In absence of sufficient information provided by the architect, the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission.

4. The architect is advised to revise the submission adhering to all the above observations given by the Commission and submit a complete revised submission (with complete drawings/documentation etc.) for the consideration of 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.

5Building plans proposal in respect of Addition/alteration in Nehru CGHS Ltd. Plot no.16, Sector-7, Dwarka

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 17, 1998, and the NOC for completion plan proposal was approved in the meeting held on May 26, 2005. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on August 05, 2021, specific observations were given.

 3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations 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-03082122025 dated 10.08.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted following observations are to be complied with: 

a. It was observed that the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-03082122025 dated 10.08.2021 inadequate replies/compliances for this has been given.

b. Double stack parking arrangements have been made along the main boundary wall and along with the only available mandatory green space in the front setback right in front of the main entry/exit, spoiling the visual and aesthetics of the area, which is not appreciated by the Commission. Alternate options shall be explored to accommodate the requisite parking requirements as per applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

c. It was observed that the location of the public toilet (ladies & gents) along the existing guard room etc. are also part of the formal submission but their detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have not been submitted. The Commission observed that these components have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex. The same is to be revised appropriately and be incorporated for review by the Commission.

4. Overall, in absence of the sufficient information provided by the architect, the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission.

5. The architect is advised to revise the submission adhering 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.

6Proposal in respect of Modification in the finishes of the external facade of Barak Hostel at JNU.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on February 09, 2019.

3. The building plan proposal in respect of modification in the external finishes of the façade (replacing external brick tiles and Dholpur stones finish with plaster & paint with matching colour shade) received (online) was scrutinised. It was suggested to use exterior grade texture paint on the façade. The proposal was found acceptable.

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

7Building plans proposal in respect of Govt. Co-Ed Senior Secondary School (Maharana Pratap Sarvodaya School) at Sector-5, Rohini.

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 October 07, 2021, 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-05102161032 dated 13.10.2021. Based on the response received, and revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a. It was observed that provisions have been made for accommodating parking requirements by converting a large chunk of the area on the northern side of the plot into a single level basement and its top surface as parking areas. The Commission opines that considering potential future evolution and requirements, the original design and initial construction should incorporate a double basement (instead of a single basement) that accommodates all regulatory ECS requirements and also design additional floors on top of the same basement’s footprint to accommodate full ECS requirements if and when the permissible FSI is fully utilized.  The additional floors above the basement can be built only when the future FSI is utilized and the top of the basement can be utilized for other activities in the meantime.

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.in.

c. All service equipment 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.in.

Approved, 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 of the Commission held on Thursday, November 11, 2021, from 02.30 PM onwards: 

1.      Shri Ajit Pai, Chairman, DUAC

2.      Shri Ashutosh Kumar Agarwal, Member, DUAC

3.      Smt. Nivedita Pande, Member, DUAC