The proposal forwarded by the MCD was approved by the Commission.

1)  The proposal forwarded by the MCD had been considered by the Sub-Committee at its meeting held on March 7, 2006 and the following observations were made:-

“This proposal had been considered by the Sub-Committee at its meeting held on March 7, 2006 when the following observations were made; -

a) The proposal forwarded by the MCD was taken up for consideration. It was found that the informations furnished by the Architects in terms of the site and surrounding development were inadequate which was imperative for examining this proposal considering the fact that the site is in heritage zone. There are also existing trees.

b) It was accordingly decided to request the Architects to submit the necessary informations so that the proposal could be examined by the Sub-Committee. The information desired is as follows :

i) Existing site & surrounding conditions in plan based on a survey.

ii) Photographs all along the street, both sides, and other sides of plots.

iii) Existing building, plans & sections

iv) Reasons why, existing footprint is not being used for new development.

v) Implications of ASI rules on development.

vi) Parking & traffic analysis of proposals.”

2) The Commission observed that the proposal be put up to the Heritage Conservation Committee for its consideration and also a site visit be made by the secretariat of the Commission since the documents submitted do not clearly show what exists & what has already been demolished.

1) The proposal had earlier been approved by the Commission at its meeting held on May 13, 2005.

2) The revised proposal forwarded by the MCD was approved by the Commission.

1)   The proposal had been considered by the Sub-Committee at its meeting held on February 14, 2006 and the following observations were made:-

“a) As discussed during the site visit by the Commission on February 11, 2006, the Chief Architect, DMRC had submitted some drawings of the scheme.

b) The drawings were seen and also discussed with Smt. Tripta Khurana, Chief Architect, DMRC and their consultants.  It was observed that some drawings were of the original scheme executed at site, whereas some were of modified drawings, showing reduced height of structures, being carried out, based on observation made at site by DUAC Task Force on NDMC.

c) It was felt that there was enough  scope to reduce the heights of other structures, as well.  These include DG set rooms, toilet cooling towers, staircases. 

d) It was felt that the large earth mounds which had been proposed to camouflage the above structures, were of steep slopes, and end abruptly which is not acceptable.  The utility of the toilet which is proposed at one periphery of the Inner Circle needed to be looked into, since the size of the park and number of people with amphitheater needed more facility.

e) The Central Park at Connaught Place is about 60 acres, nearly the size of Lodi Gardens. The design of the Park and the quality of landscape design is not befitting at such an important landmark, both Connaught Place, and the Delhi Metro Station. An opportunity is being lost, of greeting an appropriate landscaped landmark for the Delhi’s Citizens.

It is not late, and DMRC should review the situation, and appoint an eminent landscape architect to create this landmark. If not like Lodi Gardens, but take inspiration from a 6 acre iconic formal garden at Rashtrapati Bhawan.”

2)  The matter was taken up for consideration, in view of a representation letter received from Chief Architect, DMRC dated March 31, 2006.

3) The Commission observed that the letter of the Chief Architect does not address the issues  raised by the Commission. The Commission has been asking for resolving the issues of the structures, earth fill and landscaping of the park and the Metro Station in a professional manner.  This is not coming about.

4) The Commission decided to request the DMRC again to provide complete drawings showing proper grading in a workable manner taking into account the lowering of the structures and submission of a revised landscape plan The landscape architect retained for initial work should be requested to prepare the necessary drawings for submission and should include all details including site photographs of all locations to explain the proposal.

Considering the magnitude of the proposal, the Commission decided to hold a separate meeting to consider the proposal.  However it was noted that these drawings are similar to the previous submission and only show location of line & centre line of stations. It is necessary at this stage to show where entrances and other structures at ground are proposed for a meaningful discussion with the Commission.  The first submission for Udyog Bhawan to IIT, should be completed urgently so that a meeting is convened in May 2006.

1) The proposal had earlier been considered by the Sub-Committee at its meeting held on September 29, 2005 and the following observations were made:-

a) “Considering the rotary existing next to the site,  the sub-committee observed that the site of hotels could be interchanged  with the developer/builder plot.  The DDA proposed to auction the Hotel site, for which DUAC had no objection in the corner location.

b) The possibility of extending the central green in the various plots could also be explored.

c) The scheme must clearly represent the DDA auction policy. The extent of Elevation Controls be limited to the arcade level, and would be strictly followed. Upper floors freedom may be allowed in elevation development.

d) The entry/exit ramps should be shown.  Public underground parking needs to be provided for visiting population, under the Public Plaza, which could be given on a BOT.

e) The Chief Architect was advised to submit the revised proposal as per the foregoing observations for reconsideration of the Sub-Committee.”

2) The revised proposal was approved at conceptual stage with the observation that the hawkers block in its present location in front of the green be relocated along the multi level parking.  The green areas would otherwise be inaccessible and become garbage dumps.

1)  The proposal had been considered by the Sub-Committee at its meeting held on September 29, 2005 and the following observations were made:-

a) Nehru Place has numerous problems in Urban Design, including Traffic, Parking, Lack of green areas, Miss use of open spaces, etc.  It is necessary that DDA review these issues and suggest improvements to be carried out to improve the quality of environment as a first exercise, before embarking on adding more built volume in the area.

b) The existing complex of Nehru Place had a very strong element of centrally located pedestrian area which should be extended in to Phase-II of the proposal in appropriate manner, including whilst crossing the road by overhead units.

c) The Chief Architect was advised to improve the linkage by suitable design.

d) Since only envelops are being prescribed and the forms indicated were notional, the possibility of achieving more consolidating green spaces could be explored along the pedestrian route.

e) The Bahai Temple and the surrounding area should also be shown in the layout plan of the complex. The vista approaching Bahai Temple from the East side should not in any way be infringed upon.  Any consideration should not dominate the temple, this must be shown on the model, drawings & photographs.

2) The revised proposal was examined and the Commission observed that the layout plan as submitted now was also diagrammatic and it was found that there was no different from that submitted earlier.  No consideration has been given to the Commission’s observations.

3) The only difference appeared to be with regard to the large food  court area proposed to be developed, which was not accepted as an appropriate proposition by way of site or size.

4) The Commission reiterated earlier observations of the Sub-Committee and decided to advise DDA that the detail proposal be put up incorporating a proper Urban Design exercise, with much larger connections below roads to link the Scheme to the vista of Bahai Temple.

1) The proposal forwarded by the DDA had been considered by the Sub-Committee at its meeting held on December 23, 2005 and the following observations were made:-

a) “DDA had forwarded the completion plans for consideration of the Commission.

b) Earlier this project had been approved by the Commission in its meeting held on 31^st December, 2002.

c) The proposal was taken up for consideration and it was found that the ground coverage as per the proforma had been increased from the sanctioned 33.19% to 34.69% and the FAR from 166.91 to 175.04.  The front setback had been reduced from 9mt. to 8.86 mt. Before considering the scheme further the Sub-Committee decided to seek clarifications from DDA as to whether the changes noted  above were compoundable or not”

2) Now the clarifications received from DDA under letter no.23(34)2001/Bldg./67 dated February 6, 2006 were taken note by the Commission.

3) The Commission decided to convey its no objection to the DDA for the issuance of  completion certificate.

1) The proposal forwarded by the DDA had earlier been approved by the Commission at its meeting held on March 19, 2001.

2) The revised proposal forwarded by the DDA was examined and the following observations were made:-

a) The structure system need to be shown in parking including basement area.

b) The narrow spaces between the blocks looking like shafts were not appropriate for proper light & ventilation.

c) Since some blocks did not attain the full allowable height and they could be provided with an additional floor so that the congestion could be reduced in other blocks.

d) Lift core between the three blocks with long corridor links was considered inappropriate and the architect should provide alternative arrangements so that the adverse effect on the layout is minimized.

1) The proposal had been forwarded by the DDA with due certifications with regard to the compoundability of FAR, ground coverage, setbacks etc.

2) The building plans of the proposal had been approved by the Commission at its meeting held on May 31, 2001.

3) The proposal was considered by the Commission and it was decided to convey no objection to the DDA for the issuance of completion certificate.      

1) The proposal forwarded by the DDA had been considered by the Sub-Committee at its meeting held on December 23, 2005 and the following observations were made:-

a) “The following deviations were noticed:-

• • Room sizes have been increased.
  •  
  • Blocks had been shifted.
  •  
  • Change in staircase location and lift location
  •  
  • Change in community hall location and ESS design.
  •  
  • Reduction in the size of consolidated open green space.

b) The Sub-Committee observed that as per the photographs of the model and the photographs of the completed buildings, the architectural character had been changed.

c) Under the circumstances the Sub-Committee decided to recommend returning the proposal to the DDA without any comments.”

2)  Now the clarification furnished by the DDA under letter no.23(19)99/Bldg./219 dated February 15, 2006 were taken note by the Commission.

3) The Commission decided to convey no objection to the DDA for the issuance of completion certificate.

1) The proposal had been forwarded by the DDA with due certifications with regard to the   compoundability of FAR, ground coverage, setbacks etc.

2) The building plans of the proposal had been approved by the Commission at its meeting held on February 1, 2001.

3) The proposal was considered by the Commission and it was decided to convey no objection to the DDA for the issuance of completion certificate.

1) The proposal had been forwarded by the DDA for consideration of the Commission.

2) The building plans of the proposal had been approved by the Commission at its meeting held on March 23, 1988.

3) It was found that the modifications had been made in the proposal like increase in FAR and therefore the profile of building has changed.  The DDA should clarify the permissibility of increased ground coverage, FAR etc.

4) It was decided that the Commission’s no objection to the DDA for the issuance of completion certificate would be released by the secretariat of the Commission after receipt of necessary clarification as at (3).

1) The proposal of revised building plans had been considered by the Sub-Committee at its meeting held on December 13, 2005 and the following observations were made: -

a) “The proposal had been forwarded by DDA for the consideration of the Commission.

b) Earlier this proposal had been approved at the Commission’s meeting held on June 24, 1999.   Now a revised proposal had been received with increased FAR.

c) Site photographs show that the buildings have been completed.  The footprint of the blocks had been changed.

d) It was confirmed by the architect that the buildings have been constructed and even occupied.

e) The Sub-Committee observed that in view of this, the question of re-looking at it for approval of the revised building plans does not arise.

f) The Sub-Committee recommended that the proposal be returned to DDA with the above comments.”

2) It was found that the modifications had been made in the proposal like increase in FAR and therefore the profile of building has changed.  The DDA should clarify the permissibility of increased ground coverage, FAR etc.

3) It was decided that the Commission’s no objection to the DDA for the issuance of completion certificate would be released by the secretariat of the Commission after receipt of necessary clarification as at (2). 

1) The proposal had been forwarded by the DDA with due certifications with regard to the   compoundability of FAR, ground coverage, setbacks etc.

2) The building plans of the proposal had been approved by the Commission at its meeting   held on April 2, 2002.

3) The proposal was considered by the Commission and it was decided to convey no objection to the DDA for the issuance of completion certificate.      

1) The proposal had been forwarded by the DDA with due certifications with regard to the   compoundability of FAR, ground coverage, setbacks etc.

2) The building plans of the proposal had been approved by the Commission at its meeting   held on July 19, 1996.

3) The proposal was considered by the Commission and it was decided to convey no objection to the DDA for the issuance of completion certificate.

1) The proposal had been forwarded by the DDA for consideration of the Commission.

2) The building plans of the proposal had been approved by the Commission at its meeting   held on May 4, 2005.

3) The proposal was considered by the Commission and it was decided to convey no objection to the DDA for issuance of the completion certificate.

1) The revised proposal had been forwarded by the DDA for consideration of the Commission.                                                                                           

2) The matter submitted at conceptual stage had been considered (alongwith the proposal adjacent plot A-4 which had been received for formal approval from the DDA).  These had been considered at Commission’s meeting held on October 17, 2005 and the following observations were made:-

“…….The DDA has referred the proposal of plot no. A4 and P1A while the proposal of plot no. A-3 and P1B had been submitted directly by the architects/promoters for revised approval at conceptual stage for modifications of certain architectural controls and also in respect of clubbing of towers.  The Chief Architect, DDA confirmed that the modifications do not violate any law/conditions.

            Given this, the Commission has no objection to the DDA deciding this matter and proceeding with the project.

            In similar adjacent building proposals on this site, the DDA may take decisions in conformity with the above.”

3) The proposal was examined in above background and the Commission reiterated its  observations of October 17, 2005 as reproduced above.

1) The proposal forwarded by the DDA was considered by the Commission at its meeting held on March 7, 2006 and the following observations were made :-

a) The proposal forwarded by the DDA was examined and discussed with the Architect and the following observations were made :-

i) The site of the proposal is on the outer edge/boundary of the heritage zone of Walled City (Shahjahanabad) and the site in question appears to be a plot left out of development. The elevations of the building blocks were considered unacceptable. The Sub-Committee observed that the opportunity should be utilized to revitalize the overall streetscape. The architectural expressions should be so devised that it adds aesthetic value to the overall environment and induce a kind of motivation for the others to improve update the architectural expressions/elevations of their buildings as a total streetscape wherein public varandah/passage could continue as in the other buildings on both sides.  The architect agreed to this proposal.

Since, the site photographs as given were in respect of the site only and not about the surrounding environment, this aspect could not be examined. The Architect was accordingly advised to submit street photographs and details of the surroundings, including photographs of some significant buildings.

ii) So as to have more flexibility of the usability of the space, the proposal for putting up staircase and lift in the center in a building 12 mt. wide was not a good proposition and were advised to be shifted to a side, leaving a large flexible space for use.

iii) ​​​​​​​The form was unacceptable and the purpose of providing large open terrace in the centre was of no value, and the space is divided further. The Sub-Committee observed that to improve the form the area could be consolidated in the front and one open space should be left at the rear, allowing larger setback towards the Heritage zone.

b) The Architect was advised to submit a revised proposal incorporating the foregoing observations for reconsideration of the Sub-Committee.”

2) The revised proposal alongwith the representation received was considered by the Commission. Since this is only one plot remaining and the architect is wanting to provide for a building to match the existing.  The Commission does not want to prolong this discussion and the project is approved.

1) The proposal had been approved by the Commission at its meeting held on September 2, 2004 with some observations.

2) The revised layout plan received from the DDA was considered by the Commission. It was found that the plot no.15 which was to be developed as a hotel block had now been divided into smaller hotel plots i.e. plot no. 15 and 15-A.

3) The Commission took note of the changes proposed in the layout plan and decided to convey its no objection to the proposal. 

1) The proposal submitted by the PWD had been considered by the Sub-Committee at its meeting held on February 14, 2006 and the following observations were made:-

a) The proposal of flyover had been put up by the PWD after the road widening done at Naraina Village. While the proposal of flyover in this stretch was considered conceptually alright,  it was felt that the various intersections on this stretch upto a few kms. towards  Dhula Kuan needs to be studied and the total scheme be put up including the likely future linkage from the Ridge over the Ring Railway.

b) Where as it was observed that at the next intersection i.e. Brar square there was scope for linking  the Brar Square with Vivekanand Marg/upper Ridge  road. On the other side, the road passing through Cantonment upto Station road/Jail road need to be studied in detail, including the primary net-work around this intersection.  Unless this entire area is brought into the study the problem would not be solved.

c) The models should be to the scale. 

d) The PWD officers were accordingly advised to put up the revised proposal incorporating the foregoing observations for reconsideration of the Sub-Committee.

e) This proposal should also be referred to the task force on Urban Village.”

2) The Commission found that the required informations had not been furnished. The profile of existing buildings should be shown on plans and more information in context of  earlier observation were required to be submitted, particularly regarding existing structure adjacent to the road.

3) The Commission decided that the proposal would be reviewed by the task force on urban villages and also by the Sub-Committee on traffic transportation and their recommendations put up to the Commission. 

1) The proposal had been forwarded by the DDA for consideration of the Commission.

2) The scheme had earlier been approved by the Commission at its meeting held on March   22, 2006.

3) The proposal was approved by the Commission.

Shopping Mall plot no.1B5, Rohini Twin District Centre.

The Commission observed that the proposal submitted was not strictly following architectural controls as provided by the DDA 15 years ago. The proposal in general was following the form as per the control drawings where as does not follow the materials.  This aspect need to be looked into by the DDA.  The Commission has no objection to the DDA taking decision in the matter.