Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1647th meeting held on 21.04.2022.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1647th meeting held on 21.04.2022 was discussed.

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

2. The Commission did not accept the concept of the design scheme at the conceptual stage at its meeting held on March 17, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The proposal for the Redevelopment of the Multi-level Bus parking received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-10032227021 dated 22.03.2022. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect, but he was not available. It was observed that insufficient compliances to the previous observations of the Commission have been made. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that while conveying the observations of the Commission vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-10032227021 dated 22.03.2022, the architect was advised for a pointwise reply to its observations, but, the same was missing in the submission, it was not appreciated by the Commission.

b. The proposal is at the formal stage, the Commission observed that for better understanding of the design proposal annotated 3D views (including night views, to understand lighting mechanism, and birds' eye views) at various angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations and corresponding to proposal drawings be submitted for a better understanding of the scale, proportion, materials etc. in the actual context of the surroundings.

c. The frontage development has been proposed along the main roads as ‘Retail’ which would be accessible to the pedestrians from the main roads. Pedestrian movement (circulation and pattern) needs to be detailed (details in the street including street furniture, signages, lighting etc.)  And ensure a seamless and safe pedestrian movement which needs to be clearly marked on the plans, 3D views etc. for a better understanding of the proposal.  An appropriate number of 3D views (at eye level) of the frontage should be provided for better clarity and understanding.

d. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

e. In one of the 3d views of the terrace area, a cooling tower has been shown but the same is not correlated with the respective plans etc. The layouts (plans/elevations/sections) need to be co-related to ensure there are no discrepancies in the submission.  The elevations and sections need to be detailed clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. The Plans and elevations for all drawings across the site should be co-related.

f. In future, it is expected that the fleet of electric buses would be increased substantially, it is suggested to envisage and include the appropriate infrastructure including charging stations in the proposal at this stage and be shown appropriately in the design scheme with relevant details.

g. It was observed that the proposal is at the formal stage but on the 4^th floor, the cafeteria has been shown without capacity. Similarly, the dormitories have been shown without capacity and no storage space has been planned for the users. The toilets/bathing facilities for the users are yet to be detailed including plumbing arrangements etc. and screened appropriately for a better understanding of its functioning etc.

h. Proper signages are to be provided throughout the site at various locations for better navigational purposes.

i. As the proposal is for a Bus Depot, a lot of maintenance works including washing, cleaning etc. of the buses shall be undertaken. To ensure the oil spilling and cleaning activities do not percolate into the soil and mix & contaminate the other discharge of the complex, it should be ensured that appropriate treatments and catchments are created in designated areas to avoid soil and water pollution.

j. Also, a lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) would be generated in the complex therefore, a detailed solid waste management plan to depict effective means of waste disposal along with their location shall be submitted.

k. As the provisions have also been made for the retail, commercial spaces etc. it should be ensured that the noise and smell from the depot do not disturb the functioning of the retail, and commercial spaces by appropriate screening and insulating mechanisms. The details shall be reflected appropriately in the respective drawings.

l. The air-conditioning mechanism is not clear, its mechanism needs to be detailed i.e. location and the appropriate treatments used to conceal/screen the air-conditioning system. Also, it shall be ensured that there is no condensate leakage from the AC unit causing deterioration of spaces (indoor and outdoor).

m. The caption #”DILLIMERIJAAN” right in front of the steps accessing the plaza has not been done thoughtfully. It is to be removed and relocated elsewhere at an appropriate location.

n. It was observed that the location of the public toilets (under Swachh Bharat), guardrooms (with toilets), CNG yard, oil storage tanks (be screened appropriately), CNG filling stations etc. are also part of the submission and could impact and spoil the visual, urban aesthetics of the complex, but their detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have not been submitted. The same should be submitted for the review of the Commission.

o. Similarly, the design of the gate and the boundary wall would also have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex, thus a detailed drawing complete in all respect (plan/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) shall be provided.

p. The air-conditioning mechanism of the design proposal should be presented appropriately (also for the individual shops/commercial spaces etc.), as the outdoor air-conditioning units could spoil the visual, aesthetics of the façade/complex. An ammonia-based centralized system could be considered.  A detailed scheme should be presented with an appropriate screening mechanism so as not to mar the aesthetics.

q. 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.

r. All water tanks, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels 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.

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 North-DMC (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 during Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held, and submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the property is situated on the main road leading from one side to the Kashmiri gate and towards the Lothian Bridge. It was also observed that the frontage to the property is through an existing colonnaded arch-shaped passage (as seen in the existing site photographs) i.e. arches and columns in the design proposal. It was suggested to retain that passage as it is.

b. The design of the arches over the proposed windows is suggested to be kept the same as the existing arches instead of the proposed design to merge it into the existing surrounding context.

c. The proposed Jaali work in the railings to be replaced with cleaner balustrades to ensure a clean look.

d. The suggested changes are to be made in the design submission and incorporated into the 3d views.

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

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

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on February 24, 2022, 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 observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-17022222010 dated 04.03.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the submission made the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at the appropriate level (human eye) shall also be installed.

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 water tanks, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels 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.

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 April 13, 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-06042222020 dated 20.04.2022. 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-06042222020 dated 20.04.2022 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.

c. Also, it should be ensured that all rain water pipes from the proposed balconies be screened appropriately so as not to spoil the visual, urban aesthetics of the area.

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 are not consistent with the continuing existing balconies spoiling the aesthetic unity of the complex.  It is suggested to retain the design of the railing (as per existing) in the proposed balconies to maintain harmony and uniformity in the design. 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. All requisite parking requirements should be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

g. 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.

h. 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.

i. 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. 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.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (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 layout plan shows the turning on the ramps at the basement no-1 to be very sharp which is not suitable for vehicles climbing down and up the slope of the ramp. It is suggested to make all such sharp turns rounded/as per applicable norms for better navigational purposes and to ensure a safe turning radius is available.

b. Some of the discrepancies have been observed in the submission. The glass in the façade, at the corners, seems to be continuing throughout, whereas the corresponding layout plan shows fragmented windows with columns located at the middle and the corners. The 3d views and layout plans do not seem to be coordinated with each other, the same should be relooked at and the coordinated drawings (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) should be submitted for the consideration of the Commission.

c. Also, continuous structural glazing has been shown throughout, it was suggested to make a provision for the openable windows at certain locations within the structural glazing to ensure natural ventilation if and when required. As a substantial part of the façade has continuous structural glazing, its design (double-glazed/insulated/tinted) needs to be rationalised keeping in mind the orientation of the glazing and climatic conditions of the city.

d. For a better understanding of the proposal skin sections, details should be submitted clearly showing glazing details, glass fixing details and any other typical architectural details etc.

e. The atrium at the entrance is to be made more interesting by design improvisations. The atrium design at the rear is very basic and needs to be refined/detailed. Also, the proposed artwork on the side walls at the main entrance of the atrium is not appreciated by the Commission. It shall be improvised keeping in mind that It is located at an appropriate level (human eye level) which is also visible from the outside, and be of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the building.

f. The band forming on top of the projection at the first floor (terracotta tile cladding) is to be used as a balcony/planters. The balcony shall have access to ensure maintenance for plants and appropriate mechanisms to ensure no seepage occurs. 

g. It was observed that the placement of the columns right in the middle of the office space on the second floor, third floor and the fourth floor, and in the multi-purpose hall on the fifth floor appears to be hindering the functioning of the office spaces and multi-purpose hall. It is, accordingly, suggested by the Commission to rework the location of the columns with alternative structural designs to attain hindrance free spaces to increase the functional efficiency of these spaces.

h. A typical functional furniture arrangement for the office spaces, multipurpose hall, kitchen (internal arrangements) and dining areas etc. to be provided to understand the functioning of the spaces better and ensure clarity about circulation.

i. A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) would be generated in the complex therefore, a detailed solid waste management plan to depict effective means of waste disposal along with their location should be submitted.

j. The submission shows the DG set located on the ground floor, but the location of its exhaust pipes has not been shown. The exhaust pipe of the DG set should be screened appropriately to ensure it does not mar the aesthetics of the building and its façade. The same should be shown appropriately in the plans/3D views etc.

k. The air-conditioning mechanism of the building is to be detailed including the location of the units, screening mechanism etc. so as not to mar the aesthetics of the façade. The same is reflected in the respective layouts and 3d views.

l. The materials used in the boundary wall should ensue to be kept corresponding to that used in the building façade to ensure harmony & uniformity of the overall complex.

m. ‘North Point’ should be clearly marked in all the plans to understand the orientation better.

n. All water tanks, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels 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. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

Layout and Building plan proposal in respect of Residential Development for Delhi Transport Corporation at Hari Nagar. (Conceptual stage)

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

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

a. The proposal is located at an important location (on a busy main road) in West Delhi. The Commission observed that the proposal cannot be studied in isolation i.e. it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, 3D views of the site 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. The Commission observed that annotated 3d views of each block (type-A, Type-B, EWS, Club, Labour court etc.) from all the four sides have not been submitted.  A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (including night views, to understand lighting mechanism, and birds' eye views) at various angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations and corresponding to proposal drawings be submitted for a better understanding of the scale, proportion, materials etc. in the actual context of the surroundings.

b. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

c. In one of the designs of the Tower-A (3BHK +3T unit), all toilets are attached to the bedrooms with no independent accessibility for the guests. It is suggested to make provisions for an extra door from the common area.

d. 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.

3. 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.

Layout and Building plan proposal in respect of 135 nos. Railway Quarters on a parcel A of 7123 sqm Railway land. (Conceptual stage)

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

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

a. The quality of 3d views is not appropriate. They are sketchy and the scale, proportion, materials etc. are not understood. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (including bird's eye view etc.) at various angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations specifying the materials to be used on the façade shall be provided for a better understanding of the proposal.

b. The Commission observed that the proposal is surrounded by the existing residential colonies and intended to examine the proposal in context to the surroundings i.e. it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, 3D views of the site 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. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory annotated 3D views (including birds' eye views) at various angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations and corresponding to proposal drawings be submitted for a better understanding of the scale, proportion, materials etc. in the actual context of the surroundings.

c. The requisite parking requirements of the site have been provided on the surface spoiling the visual, urban aesthetics of the surroundings & creating a heat island effect, and also depriving the site of valuable consolidated green spaces.  It was, accordingly, strongly suggested to explore the possibility of creating basements and accommodating all the requisite requirements of parking in the basement itself. The freed-up spaces are utilised for creating consolidated greens, recreational spaces etc. for the users.

d. A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) would be generated in the complex therefore, a detailed solid waste management plan to depict effective means of waste disposal along with their location shall be submitted.

e. The provision of air-conditioning is not understood evidently in the submission. The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, the provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units, at this stage, 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.

f. The balconies need to be screened appropriately along with the provision of screening of drying clothes. Innovative architectural features and materials shall screen dish antennas in the balconies.

g. A planned scheme of signages is to be created and the same shall be implemented in the design proposal to maintain uniformity and enable facade control.

h. The design of the gate and the boundary wall could have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex, the same needs to be detailed for gate/grill detail/material applications coordinated with plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.

i. Work of art shall be located at an appropriate level (human eye level) which is also visible from the outside, and be of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex.

j. Provisions are to be made for public toilets/washrooms should be as per applicable rules/regulations/guidelines etc. It could have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex. Therefore, relevant details including plans/elevations/sections/3d views to be submitted along with the screening mechanism.

k. In addition to the above, the detail of the parapet shall be inward such that the rainwater does not spoil the outer façade.

l. The Commission observed that the roof terraces have not been utilised appropriately to install solar panels though a large roof terrace area is available. A sufficient part of the terrace should be utilised to install solar photovoltaic panels and help reduce the carbon footprint. It should be suitably accommodated and screened so as not to mar the aesthetics. 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.

m. All plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, DG set and its exhaust pipes, solar panels 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. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

Feasibility study for the elevated corridor between INA to airport integrating GPRA colonies. (Conceptual stage)

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

2. The Commission did not approve the design proposal for the Feasibility study for the elevated corridor between INA to airport integrating GPRA colonies at its meeting held on September 23, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The design proposal for the Feasibility study for the elevated corridor between INA to airport integrating GPRA colonies received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted on the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-09092161028 dated 30.09.2021, and a detailed discussion was also held with the architect who provided clarifications to the observations of the Commission. Based on the replies submitted, the discussion held and the revised submission made the 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-09092161028 dated 30.09.2021 inadequate replies for this have been given.

b. While conveying the observations of the Commission at its meeting held on September 23, 2021, it was suggested that :

“………As the scale of the proposal is huge, a detailed 3D walkthrough shall be submitted to explain the scheme better……………..the architect is suggested to make a detailed presentation (online along with a 3d walkthrough)………….to enable it to examine the proposal holistically…..”

The Commission reiterated its earlier observation that a schematic 3D walkthrough should be submitted to explain the scheme, scale, proportions, and size of the proposal better.

c. Though, considering the scale of the proposal the architect/proponent did make efforts to divide the proposal segment-wise, but, it was not sufficiently explicit to understand the proposed design scheme holistically. Every segment of the design proposal should be detailed comprehensibly (including landscaping works, street furniture, merging of existing and proposed traffic, pedestrians, cyclists etc.).

d. The project being of such a scale requires to have at least one of each element detailed and with a blow-up of each section including key plans, road sections, pedestrian level details, 3d views etc. to illustrate the working of each section. The submission lacks such a comprehensive scheme and thus needs to be revised accordingly.

e. The proposed 3d views shall be annotated appropriately to highlight the site surroundings, location of the site, angle of the 3d view, the direction of the road and any other specific details including materials used for railing etc.

f. The elevated corridor would have entry and exit points at various locations. The details of the same need to be given including the merging of the entry/exit points with emphasis on pedestrian connections/crossovers (features like table-top crossing, provision of pedestrian signals, railing details, location of bus stops etc.), especially near residential areas where connections across the road would be frequently used.

g. To comprehend a project of such a scale, the Commission strongly suggests a detailed walkthrough to elaborate on details of site surroundings, movements and connections, details of urban design, impact on the skyline etc. which cannot be easily understood through 2-d plans. The walkthrough should highlight important areas like merging points (elevated and at-grade levels), elevated corridors passing around important landmarks and their impact on the surroundings, details at pedestrian levels, treatment of spaces under the elevated corridor etc. to give a comprehensive visual.

h. Details of various street elements like Light poles, railings, crash guards, noise cutters, signage for wayfinding, pedestrian facilities, cyclist facilities and appropriate provisions for rainwater harvesting etc. should also be a part of the detailed submission for consideration. Rainwater pipes etc. shall ensure to be screened.

i. The Commission opines that the proposals should not be considered only for problems of engineering solutions of traffic/transportation in the form of flyovers etc. but should also be seen in the larger context of a cityscape focusing on its spatial impact and experience of the pedestrian.  It should be considered as a large-scale intervention in the city fabric, and its impact on the urban form and the surrounding areas, particularly on the edges shall not be neglected.

j. The details of GPRA colonies (integration with the elevated corridor) is not clear in the submission. As one of the intents of the proposal is to connect the GPRA colonies to the elevated corridor, it is essential to understand the integration of the built fabric and the proposed infrastructure.

k. Proper plans marking the connections (with integration with the elevated corridor) clearly with the main entry gates/access nodes to the alignment point on the elevated road (pedestrian uses) to be marked to understand the connectivity around the main residential areas. Integration with pedestrian facilities is not visible in the submission i.e. Connections with bus stops, street furniture etc. are also not addressed adequately by the architect/proponent.

l. The abundance of spaces is available under the elevated corridor. A comprehensive design scheme for landscaping, rainwater harvesting, and utilities should be detailed and put to appropriate use including landscaped greens, housing utilities, works of art etc. to ensure that they do not become dumping grounds or be encroached on so as not to spoil the overall urban and visual aesthetics of the area.

m. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., they are not adequate and self-explanatory.

4. Taking into consideration the facts enumerated above, the Commission opines that the compliances furnished by the architect on its previous observations are insufficient and inadequate to examine judiciously such an important proposal of this scale and size.

5. In view of the above and taking into consideration the overall urban aesthetic, visual quality, scale, proportions, and size of the proposal, it is again suggested to make a detailed presentation (online along with a 3d walkthrough), before the Commission after adhering to all the previous and the current observations, along with a pointwise incorporation/reply to enable it to examine the proposal holistically.

Revised building plans proposal for Addition/alteration in respect of Group Housing complex at Magazine Road, Khyber Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi. (Conceptual stage)

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

2. The proposal is deferred.