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 September 27, 2003, and the NOC for completion was accepted in the meeting held on August 12, 2009. The proposal for regularisation/completion was approved in the meeting held on October 29, 2018. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alteration at its meeting held on March 17, 2022, specific observations were given.
3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (extension of balconies) 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-11032222014 dated 22.03.2022. 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 observations letter no: OL-11032222014 dated 22.03.2022 inadequate compliances for this have been given.
b. The Commission observed that the design scheme is for the extension of balconies in the existing residential units. The 3D views of the design scheme presented are unrealistic and do not represent the actual site conditions. The same should be revised and resubmitted.
c. Inconsistencies observed in the drawings, the screening mechanism shown in the balconies does not reflect in the 3D views submitted, thereby do not depict the correct scheme. All drawings (plans, elevations, sections,3D views etc.) should be correlated with each other.
d. From the photographs of the existing superstructure submitted by the architect, it is evident that a lot of balconies are covered with the temporary material, the same should be removed.
e. The proposed balconies extensions have been designed differently and not consistent with the continuing existing balconies spoiling the aesthetic unity of the complex. The same should be relooked at and resubmitted with greater consistency in appearance. Furthermore, the new proposed balconies have not sufficiently integrated the air conditioners with appropriate screening. This should be addressed as the complex looks ugly due to the present positioning of outdoor units without any harmony or thoughtfulness.
f. The added structure shall be such designed that it withstands weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes 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.
g. The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.
h. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory. The proposal needs to be complete and comprehensive.
4. Considering the points enumerated above, the architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and suggested to resubmit the revised design scheme adhering to all the above observations given by the Commission along with pointwise incorporation & reply.