Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1632nd meeting held on 13.01.2022.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1632nd meeting held on 13.01.2022 was discussed.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North-DMC (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 Commission observed that the proposal is at the formal stage and the title of the proposal submitted on the DUAC online portal through the MCD online portal as:

“Motel at Ghitorni”

Whereas all the submission drawings bear the property address is:

“Motel building on Khasra no. 51/1 min, 51/10 min, 51/26 Min, 51/6 min, situated at village Bakoli”

b) Due to a mismatch of the property address in the proposal title and the submission drawings, it is returned to the concerned local body i.e. North-DMC without consideration of the Commission.

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

2. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (demolition of existing structures on the ground floor and addition of a new structure on the ground floor, first floor, second floor, and third floor above) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx meetings wherein the architect provided clarifications to the queries of the members of the Commission. Based on the detailed discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the building proposal is situated in the Old Delhi (Shahjahanabad area) 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 Commission suggested that elevation needs to be redesigned with better architectural features, elements, form, materials etc. by exploring the possibility of using natural material similar to the character of Old Delhi.

b) To accommodate requisite car parking requirements, the provision of a car lift has been proposed. Considering site constraints its working mechanism, size etc. could not be understood properly. This area needs to be detailed appropriately with its working mechanism etc.    

c) 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.

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.in.

3. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 21, 1996, specific observations were given. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a lift from ground to the fourth floor, administrative area on the second floor, and fourth floor) at its meeting held on December 30, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a lift from ground to the fourth floor, administrative area on the second floor, and fourth floor) 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-10012222003 dated 18.01.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed that in terms of the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. DUAC observation letter no: OL-10012222003 dated 18.01.2022 inadequate compliances for this has been given.

b) The Commission observed that all the available open spaces have been taken into ECS parking calculations and the parking provisions have been made along with the classrooms, multipurpose hall etc. and also conflicting the pedestrian (students) movement to the playground etc., which is not acceptable. The Commission observed that it could spoil the visual, urban, and aesthetic environment of the school complex. The revised coordinated drawings (plan/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) shall be submitted for the consideration of the Commission.

c) It is again reiterated that set-back areas/roads counted towards achieving ECS calculations (for car parking) is not acceptable and spoiling the visual, urban, aesthetics of the area. These areas are suggested to be kept free from all vehicular parking requirements; they shall be kept free for emergencies. Alternative suitable solutions/mechanisms shall be explored (without conflicting the vehicular and pedestrian movement) to accommodate all the existing and proposed parking requirements of the proposal.

4. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx meetings wherein the architect provided clarifications to the queries of the members of the Commission. Based on the detailed discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is submitted at the Formal stage for approval, some inconsistencies have been observed in the design submission. The layout for the rear staircase does not match with the 3d views i.e. the 3d view depicts an open staircase that cannot be accessed at the terrace level as the terrace parapet is very deep and would hinder the accessibility to the terrace. Whereas, the layout plan shows an enclosed staircase that opens up on the terrace level. Thus, the drawings (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) shall be revised/co-related and resubmitted.

b) The elevation features in the buildings are not reflected in the sections, details of doors/windows and other basic details. Detailed sections reflecting the elevation features (as shown in 3d views as well) shall be submitted. Detailed information to be supplemented in the sections which show the location of all architectural elements, along with any level differences (if any).

c) Also, the site seems to be vehicle oriented rather than pedestrian-friendly i.e. the peripheral car movement can create a conflict for pedestrian (students) movement. thus, it is suggested that the main entry be changed from the existing location and be shifted to the centre of the site so that the vehicle movement is segregated from pedestrian (students) movement.

d) The stack parking (triple) does not have any back support and could be risky in case the car is backing up. Appropriate provisions for providing support shall be made in the design and be reflected in the layout/sections/3d views to make the design clear.

e) The functioning of the scooter parking is not understood as there are car parking all around including triple stack. It is suggested to remove some of the car parking and the freed-up spaces can be used for the conflict-free movement of the two-wheelers movement. The scheme shall be detailed and revised accordingly.

f) The location made for the parking for differently-abled is not acceptable. Also, the location of the lift does not seem appropriate as it is not easy to be accessed by the differently-abled due to the placement of cars on the edge of the stilt floor, which would hinder the movement of the users. It is suggested by the Commission to remove the car parking placed adjacent to the entrance staircase and provide parking for differently-abled to ensure they can access the lift for upper floors without any conflict or hindrance.

g) The playground seems to be fragmented and needs to be consolidated to ensure it can be used appropriately by the users (students) and has seamless and uninterrupted conflict-free access.

h) The location of the Swachh Bharat toilet is not as per the relevant provisions/guidelines/regulations etc. and thus shall be shifted appropriately. Also, the location of the public toilet is part of the formal submission but their screening mechanism, 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.

3. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx meetings wherein the architect provided clarifications to the queries of the members of the Commission. Based on the detailed discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal being submitted at the Formal stage for approval, some inconsistencies have been observed in the design submission. The layout for the rear staircase does not match with the 3d views i.e. the 3d view depicts an open staircase that cannot be accessed at the terrace level as the terrace parapet is very deep and would hinder the accessibility to the terrace. Whereas, the layout plan shows an enclosed staircase that opens up on the terrace level. Thus, the drawings (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) shall be revised/co-related and resubmitted.

b) The elevation features in the buildings are not reflected in the sections, details of doors/windows and other basic details. Detailed sections reflecting the elevation features (as shown in 3d views as well) shall be submitted. Detailed information to be supplemented in the sections which show the location of all architectural elements, along with any level differences (if any).

c) Also, the site seems to be vehicle oriented rather than pedestrian-friendly i.e. the peripheral car movement can create a conflict for pedestrian (students) movement. Thus, it is suggested that the main entry be changed from the existing location so that the vehicle movement is segregated from pedestrian (students) movement.

d) The stack parking (triple) does not have any back support and could be risky in case the car is backing up. Appropriate provisions for providing support shall be made in the design and be reflected in the layout/sections/3d views to make the design clear.

e) The functioning of the scooter parking is not understood as there are car parking all around including triple stack. It is suggested to remove some of the car parking and the freed-up spaces can be used for the conflict-free movement of the two-wheelers movement. The scheme shall be detailed and revised accordingly.

f) The location made for the parking for differently-abled is not acceptable. Also, the location of the lift does not seem appropriate as it is not easy to be accessed by the differently-abled due to the placement of cars on the edge of the stilt floor, which would hinder the movement of the users. It is suggested by the Commission to remove the car parking placed adjacent to the entrance staircase and provide parking for differently-abled to ensure they can access the lift for upper floors without any conflict or hindrance.

g) The playground seems to be fragmented and needs to be consolidated to ensure it can be used appropriately by the users (students) and has seamless and uninterrupted conflict-free access.

h) The location of the Swachh Bharat toilet is not as per the relevant provisions/guidelines/regulations etc. and thus shall be shifted appropriately. Also, the location of the public toilet is part of the formal submission but their screening mechanism, 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.

3. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 17, 2021.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the 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) 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.

c) All service equipment, solar panels, water tanks etc. 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.in.

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

2. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx meetings wherein the architect provided clarifications to the queries of the members of the Commission. Based on the detailed discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The plot numbers given are 1889, 1890-1892, no clarity has been given on the actual plot number of the design proposal. The following discrepancy has also been observed:

“Area of the plot has been given in the project report as -   7.90 m X 7.77 m

But the drawings (plans) bearing dimension as ….15.80 m X 15.54 m…”

It is evident that the plot size mentioned in the report and the drawings do not match each other.

b) The Commission observed that the building proposal is located on the main Chandni Chowk road which has been renovated recently. 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 Commission suggested that elevation needs to be redesigned with better architectural features, elements, form and materials etc. by exploring the possibility of using natural material similar to the character of Old Delhi.

c) 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.

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.in.

3. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

2. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (demolition of existing structures on the ground floor and addition new structure on the ground floor, first floor, second floor, and third floor above) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx meetings wherein the architect provided clarifications to the queries of the members of the Commission. Based on the detailed discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the building proposal is situated in the Old Delhi (Shahjahanabad area) 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 Commission suggested that elevation needs to be redesigned with better architectural features, elements, form and materials etc. by exploring the possibility of using natural material similar to the character of Old Delhi.

b) Requisite car parking requirements shall be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

c) 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.

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.in.

3. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.