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

2. The Commission did not approve the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on November 13, 2020 specific observations were given.

3. The layout and building plan proposal (for group housing) received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in compliance to the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-10112056009 dated 19.11.2020. It was observed that observations indicated at sr. no 2 (a, b, d, e, f, g, j, k, l and m) inadequate compliance for this has been given, needs to be resubmitted after necessary compliances. However, based on the revised scheme submitted for the consideration of the Commission following observations were given:

a) It was observed that location and building profile of the community centre, ESS etc. has been indicated in the layout plan but their detailed drawings (elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have been not submitted. The Commission observed that it has a bearing on the overall visual, urban and aesthetic quality of the complex, accordingly, submission shall be revised and resubmitted.

b) Inconsistency between 3D views and site plan/layout plan etc. submitted was observed, thereby not presenting the correct picture of the proposal. All drawings etc. shall ensure to be better coordinated with each other and resubmitted for the review of the Commission.

c) The Commission observed that given the sizeable size of the plot, it appears to have spread the housing component and surface parking profligately and perhaps not judiciously, without considering potential future evolution and requirements. This design approach might alter and mar the aesthetics of the area by creating avoidable limitations.

d) Alternative options may be explored for accommodating surface parking elsewhere including basement, and the freed up parking spaces may be used judiciously. Considering these facts, it was strongly suggested to prepare a comprehensive master plan for the site incorporated with all the current and futuristic requirements and submitted.

e) It was observed that all residential towers are of similar height. To break the monotony, it was suggested to provide some variation as program requires to enhance the overall visual, urban and aesthetic experience.

f) The building block profile has been designed in a manner creating a lot of negative spaces. It shall be redesigned to minimise negative/wastage of space.

g) The building blocks seems to have been placed arbitrarily, without optimising and considering the weather conditions in the City of Delhi. Further, direct light and ventilation to the rooms shall be ensured.

h) Internal functional furniture arrangements of the typical residential units shall be provided for better understanding of the functioning of the individual units.

i) As per project report, a lot of trees on the site are proposed to be cut and replanted for the project. Considering environmental considerations, it was requested to provide a detailed survey indicating the details of the trees to be cut/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 complex should aim to maximise energy efficiency with the appropriate use of the solar panels on building roof tops etc. and screen them by using appropriate architectural mechanisms and set an example in the city for such future proposals. 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 DUAC website at www.duac.org.

4. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish a point wise incorporation/reply.

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

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

3. The layout and building plan proposal received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in compliance to the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: 55(2)/2021-DUAC, OL-25022155002 dated 05.03.2021 and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx meetings (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission on various aspects related to consolidated greens, vehicular circulation, location of ramps, porch design etc. Based on the revised submission and discussion held following observations were given:

a) Parking arrangements shall be made hindrance free and adhering to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc. including circulation.

b) Location of entry ramp to basement shall be moved further leaving sufficient turning radius space for the navigating vehicles. The proposal has been received without covering of ramps which shall not be covered later at any stage so as not to mar the aesthetics of the complex.

c) 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.

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 DUAC website at www.duac.org.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the NDMC (online) for consideration of 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. The revised layout and building plans were 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 Commission did not approve the layout and building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on April 12, 2021 specific observations were given.

4. 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-05042124011 dated 16.04.2021 and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx meetings (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission on various aspects related to the scale, proportion of the Gopuram, porch design, incoherence in elevational features on the façade, placement of work of art on columns etc., but appropriate reply could not be received. However, based on the revised submission and discussion held following observations were given:

a) It was observed that observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-05042124011 dated 16.04.2021 indicated at sr. no 3 (a, c) inadequate compliance for this has been given.

b) It was observed that drawings (3d views, plans, elevations, sections etc.) are not coordinated with each other, important structural essentials imparting the character and aesthetics to the complex are missing. Thereby not portraying the actual picture. All drawings (plans/elevations/sections/3 D views etc.) shall ensure to be better coordinated with each other and resubmitted for the review of the Commission.

c) The Commission reiterated its earlier observations that considering the scale, proportion of the Gopuram it shall harmonize well with the overall elevational treatment of the façade including symmetrical placement. It was also suggested to explore the possibility of amalgamating it with the porch for cohesion. The elevational columns provided on the front façade appears to be asymmetrical and spoiling the overall aesthetics of the façade. It was again suggested to let it continue to the bottom for better symmetry, and aesthetics.

d) Direct light and ventilation to the rooms shall be ensured.

e) The building is of importance considering its location, use and possibility to reflect the art, architecture, culture, tradition, spirit and the character of the State of Tamilnadu. The boundary wall design including plans/elevations/3D views etc. in coherence with the overall elevational character of the proposal be submitted.

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

5. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish a point wise incorporation/reply.

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

2. The building plan proposal received (online) at conceptual stage was scrutinised and following observations were given:

a) Considering the scale of project and its pedestrian usages, the site lacks clarity in providing appropriate landscaping/landscape elements including street furniture in the pedestrian zones on the Southern and Western side where a lot of space is available. Appropriate provisions shall be made in the design itself so that pedestrian zones remain free of vehicular trespassing all the time.

b) For better navigational purposes, appropriate signage be ensured throughout the site at appropriate places.

c) The parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

d) The Commission observed that the height of the building is 14.10 m and the proposed height of the Atrium above terrace level is 8.90 m. Considering the scale, proportion of the overall height of the atrium shall be appropriately rationalised so as not spoil the visual, urban, aesthetics of the complex. Similarly, the extensive use of glass shall also be rationalised keeping in mind the climatic considerations and orientation of the building.

e) Inconsistency observed in the submitted proposal, section A is not correct, the same shall be revised with other relevant details.

f) It was observed that provisions for two restaurants have been taken on the second floor. Details regarding its capacity, seating layout, kitchen details (servicing etc.) and its associated services are missing in the submission. It needs to be incorporated and shown appropriately in the proposal including chimneys from kitchen cooking areas.

g) A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) supposed to be generated in the complex, a detailed solid waste management plan to show effective means of waste disposal along with its location shall be submitted.

h) Work of public art shown in the 3D views shall be coordinated well with the other drawings and ensure that 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.

i) The elements of sustainability are missing in the design scheme. These shall be identified and marked on the plans. 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.

j) 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. by using the same architectural features and the materials etc.

3. The architect is advised to be adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission in the formal proposal to be subsequently submitted thereafter and submit a pointwise reply of the compliance, for consideration of the Commission.