MINUTES OF THE 1652nd MEETING OF THE DELHI URBAN ART COMMISSION (DUAC) HELD ON THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2022.

A.   The minutes of the 1651st meeting of the Delhi Urban Art Commission held on 19.05.2022 were confirmed and approved.

SL. No.PROPOSALOBSERVATIONS /SUGGESTIONSDECISIONREMARKS

B.

Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1650th meeting held on 12.05.2022.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1650th meeting held on 12.05.2022 was discussed.

Noted by the Commission.

C. PROJECT PROPOSALS:

1Layout and Building plan proposal in respect of Residential Group Housing at plot no. 7, Court Road, Civil Lines including reconstruction of the collapsed heritage structure.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 01, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The Layout and Building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-28032223016 dated 06.04.2022. Based on the previous observations, and submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that very specific detailed comments were given vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-28032223016 dated 06.04.2022 but, no efforts seem to have been made by the architect to address the same. Moreover, the incomplete submission has been received by the Commission for its consideration, which was not appreciated. No pointwise reply to the DUAC observations have been received.

b. The Commission again reiterated that the proposal is located at an important location in Delhi (in the vicinity of the civil lines area) which has a very distinct architectural character and is near to the Raj Bhawan (Hon’ble LG house) and also the ‘Delhi Ridge’. 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 fragmented 3d views have been submitted. 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.

c. Provision of proposed parking not clearly understood. Parking (including fragmented triple-stack parking) is placed haphazardly, on the surface, all over the site apparently without sufficient thoughtfulness, the same is missing in the 3D views submitted for the consideration of the Commission. Why is consolidated basement parking not being considered?

d. The project submitted at the Formal stage and should submit detailed drawings of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) and elevations. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials. An appropriate number of sections from end to end of the proposed scheme be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc.

e. The provision of air-conditioning units on the façade is not given in the proposal (drawings/3d views). The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, provisions should be made in the design to accommodate and screen the outdoor units appropriately, so as not to mar the aesthetics. The same shall be reflected in appropriate layouts and 3d views. The materials/finishes used for screening should be similar to the materials used in the elevation.

f. The Commission observed that the provisions made for the screening of drying of clothes, dish antenna etc. have not been shown in the submission, it shall be presented through a design scheme in a graphical format to understand it better. The same needs to be revised, co-related with other drawings and resubmitted. Innovative architectural features and materials shall screen dish antennas in the balconies.

g. The greens in the site are fragmented and scattered. Being a residential complex with so many residential units consolidated greens should have been created for the users (including women, children and the elderly).  Also, the parking is carved out of the existing greens. It is suggested to provide consolidated greens on the site for efficient use and alternative arrangements should be explored to relocate the parking elsewhere.

h. Submitted landscape plans lack clarity in explaining the landscape scheme. The sites’ landscaping to be improved with appropriate treatment (Hardscape & Softscape). Landscape details are not appropriately resolved for the proposal. Needs to indicate the details of the trees planted, existing trees, levels, and types of species on an appropriate scale, (in terms of the point nos. 06 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) is available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

i. A signage policy should be adopted on the site to maintain uniformity. They need to be appropriately located to ensure that they do not mar the aesthetics of the façade.

j. The design of the gate and the boundary wall could have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex, thus details of the same should be provided including 3d Views, elevations, sections, gate/grill detail, material applications etc.

k. The work of Public art of suitable scale to the context to be installed in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in need to be made.

l. The elements of sustainability are missing in the design scheme. These shall be identified and marked on the plans.  Roof-top utilities are not shown in the plan/ 3D views and thus require to  be shown on the relevant drawings. Solar photovoltaic panels shall be suitably accommodated in the design so as not to mar the aesthetics and help to reduce the carbon footprint. 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. The screening for the same shall also be mentioned and marked clearly in the plans/3D views.

m. A lot of waste is supposed to be generated in the complex, a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location on the site plan be submitted.

n. All service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, areas accommodating DG set, exhaust pipes etc. should be suitably screened using appropriate architectural mechanisms so as not to remain visible, and mar the aesthetics of the complex (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. Overall, incomplete design submission have been made and the overall design is not comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory, making it difficult for the Commission to examine it judiciously.

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

Not approved, observations given.

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


2Revised building Plans proposal for Addition/alterations in respect of Bharat Jagriti CGHS Ltd., Plot no. 22, Sector-12, Dwarka.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 24, 2001, and the NOC for the completion plan proposal was accepted in the meeting held on June 18, 2014. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of balconies, room) at its meeting held on March 15, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of balconies, room) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-11032255011 dated 16.03.2022. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal is for additions/alterations (addition of balconies, room) in the existing residential units. The 3D views of the design scheme presented are unrealistic and do not represent the actual site conditions.

b. All rainwater pipes from the proposed balconies are screened appropriately so as not to spoil the visual, urban aesthetics of the area. A design scheme in this respect should be submitted for review by the Commission.

c. 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.

d. The design of the proposed balconies should ensure to be as per existing balconies to maintain harmony and uniformity in the design.

e. 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 that 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.

4. 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.

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

Not approved, observations given.
The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

3

Building plans proposal for Addition/alteration in respect of a Motel building at Khasra No. 41/9 Min, 41/10/2, 41/12 Min, 40 /6 /3 /1 at Rajokri Intersection NH-8, Near Palam International Airport.

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

2. The Commission does not have the record of the previous approval (formal) taken, if any, in the available record of the DUAC. The Commission accepted the concept of the additions/alterations (2 basements+G+8 floors) over an existing building of (basement+Ground+Partial first floor) at its meeting held on December 23, 2021, and specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (2 basements+G+9 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-17122127087 dated 28.12.2021. Based on the formal submission made and the previous observation compliances, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that while accepting the concept of the additions/alterations at its meeting held on December 23, 2021, some very specific observations were given with the understanding that the same would be complied with by the architect in the next submission i.e. formal. But no such compliances have been made by the architect which is not appreciated by the Commission.

b. In addition to the above, the proposal is at the formal stage and located at a very important location in the city, the Commission 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 (including bird-eye views of the whole site, night-time views (to understand the lighting better)) 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.

c. The Commission also observed that the proposal is for a motel building with a lot of public interface areas (including office spaces, banqueting facilities, motel rooms, podium parking areas etc.) their detailed interior views of some of the common areas including drop off points, double-height entrance lobby, lounge, double-height banquet areas, lobby areas,  podium parking etc. should also be submitted for the consideration of the Commission to understand the overall design scheme with design elements, material specifications etc. better.

d. It was observed that the location of the public toilet and the guard room etc. are also part of the formal submission but their detailed 3D views etc. with material have not been incorporated in the submission. The Commission observed that these components have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex. The same should be incorporated in the submission and coordinated drawings should be submitted for the consideration of the Commission.

e. Similarly, 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.

f. Banqueting facilities, restaurants, party halls, poolside lounge/restaurants etc. have been proposed but without indicating the capacity etc., and the kitchen, chimny shaft etc. without an inter-functional mechanism. It is suggested to provide internal functional furniture arrangements in these areas to understand their functioning better. 

g. Rooftop terraces have been provided with Solar panels, water tanks etc., but the same are not reflected in the subsequent sections, the same should be provided for a better understanding of the screening mechanisms etc.

h. All requisite parking requirements should be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

i. The Plumbing mechanism in the building is not clear. Most of the toilets proposed are without shafts to suitably accommodate plumbing pipes etc. Location of plumbing shafts, openings, accessibility, screening mechanism for the pipes etc. needs to be clearly marked on the plans/elevations/3D views etc. along with appropriate means of screening. A coherent scheme shall be prepared and submitted for review by the Commission.

j. Location of DG Set, DG exhaust pipes etc. should be provided with a screening mechanism.

k. 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.

l. All service equipment, water tanks, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes, air-conditioning 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. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., they are not sufficiently provided for a proposal at the formal stage. The proposal needs to be complete, detailed and comprehensive.

5. Considering the facts 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.

Not approved, observations given.
The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

4Building plan proposal for additions/alterations in respect of plot no. 4190-4191 at Urdu Bazar, Jama Masjid.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 01, 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 observation letter no: OL-2403222015 dated 06.04.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. 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.

b. All service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioner units, solar panels, plumbing pipes 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.

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

5Building plans proposal in respect of addition/alterations in Commercial Building in Service apartment tower (Svelte Hotel) at Plot no. A3, District Centre, Saket.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for addition/alterations in Commercial Building in Service apartment tower (Svelte Hotel) at its meeting held on October 07, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The layout and building plans in respect of district centre Saket (2nd stage approval of architectural controls) were approved by the Commission at its meeting held on December 30, 1996. The layout and building plan proposal in respect of Shopping-cum-multiplex at plot no. A3 & P1B were approved by the Commission at its meeting held on January 20, 2005. The revised plans in respect of Shopping-cum-multiplex at plot no. A3 & P1B were accepted by the Commission at its meeting held on May 08, 2006. The Commission approved the proposal for additions/alterations (for approval of enhancement of FAR) including modifications in Basement-01 (two anchor stores added), modification in Basement-03(Chiller plant Room provided), modifications in Ground floor (area over ramp added to accommodate toilets, escalators added at the entrance connecting Ground floor & a basement, addition of a lift at the entrance to provide access to third floor, addition of two sets of external staircases), modifications in first floor (terraces converted to commercial, addition of two sets of external staircases), modifications in Second floor (terrace converted to commercial, addition of a bridge,  bridge at Grid 1-3 converted to commercial, bridge at Grid J-K converted to commercial, bridge at Grid 11-12‘ converted to male & female toilets), modifications in third floor (commercial proposed, shifting of skylight from second to third floor) at its meeting held on October 16, 2019 specific observations were given.

4. The building plan proposal for addition/alterations (addition of two floors (eight & ninth floor above over an existing building comprising of 2B+G+7 floors), including two main staircases & three lifts) in Service apartment tower (Svelte Hotel) at Plot no. A3 received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-30092122034 dated 13.10.2021, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx Meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission on various aspects related to the proposal. Based on the detailed discussion held, compliances made, and the revised submission, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a. 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.

b. All service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioner units, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes, solar panels, plumbing pipes 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.

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

6Building plans proposal in respect of extension of DSSSB existing building, Institutional area, FC-18, Karkardooma.

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

2. The proposal was deferred.

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

7Completion plans proposal in respect of Auditorium block and Block 7 to 9 of Institute of Technology & Management Studies at PSP Area, Plot no. 1, Sector-22, Rohini.

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

2. The proposal was deferred.

Deferred

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


8Proposal in respect of proposed Artwork (Painting) on type VII GPRA (Pocket 1) – Minto Road corner, junction of Minto road/ Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal in respect of 120 Nos. GPRA Type -VII Flats, Pocket 1, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg at its meeting held on January 18, 2017, and the NOC for completion accepted in the meeting held on April 07, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. Now, the proposal in respect of Art Work (painting on the wall) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observation is to be complied with:

a. The Commission appreciated and fully endorsed the theme (Save Soil Movement) selected which is quite relevant in today's date. But, opines that considering the prominent location of the building/façade and the scale of the proposed artwork including very bright colours, and the medium selected is not appropriate i.e. painting on façade, would fade away in some time due to weathering effect.

4. It was, accordingly suggested to explore some other alternative options close to nature or on the same theme (as proposed) in the form of murals/sculptures/other appropriate alternative materials which are permanent. 

Not approved, observations given.
The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

9Revised Building plans proposal in respect of addition/alterations in Tamil Nadu Guest House at plot no. 9, Chanakyapuri.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for the guest house and staff quarters of Tamil Nadu house at its meeting held on February 21, 2000, and the NOC for completion was accepted in the meeting held on January 29, 2004.

3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (construction of two canopies (one in front & one at the rear) on the ground floor, one Gas plant structure on the ground floor in the side set-back, and one LT Panel room on the ground floor) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held and the submission made the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that one of the canopies (size 19.45 m 5.10 m) at the rear is of glass supported by the four MS columns, but during the discussion, the architect indicated that the columns are of stainless steel. Since, it could impact the overall visual, and urban aesthetics of the complex, a detailed drawing with material specifications etc. including 3D views should be provided for consideration of the Commission.   

b. Further, the architect has informed that a glass canopy over the entrance to the lift lobby will be removed and a sunshade of size 750 mm will be installed, but the same has not been indicated in his report or the drawings. Since the proposal is at the formal stage coordinated drawings (plans/elevations/report/3D views etc.) should ensure to be submitted.

c. The generator set above the LT panels’ room should be suitably screened so as not to spoil the visual and urban aesthetics of the complex.

d. The Gas plant structure on the ground floor in the side setback shall also be screened with some alternative materials like vertical greens to increase the ambience of the complex.

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

Not approved, observations given.
The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

10Building plans proposal in respect of Establishment of Regional Centre for National Institute of Open Schooling at Sector-30, Rohini.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 05, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-28042262011  dated 11.05.2022 and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided the clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held, compliances made, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The material used for the space frames provided at the front entrance and rear entrances to the building (atrium) is suggested to be kept of a material light in weight (like stainless steel of superior grade quality) for better aesthetics and maintenance.

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 service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioners units, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes, solar panels, plumbing pipes 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.

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

11

Proposal for New Flyover at Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi. (Conceptual stage)

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

2. The proposal for a new flyover at Sarai Kale Khan received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised and found acceptable. 

Found conceptually suitable (not limited to these observations).

The conceptual suitability is only with reference to the mandate of the Commission. However, it would be reassessed at the formal stage based on the 20-point criteria as available on the DUAC website.  It would not be a substitute for formal approval of the proposal referred through the concerned local body in terms of section 12 of the DUAC Act, 1973.

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

12

Layout and Building plans proposal in respect of Fire Station and Residential Quarters at Jasola. (Conceptual stage)

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

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

A. Fire Station:

a. The proposed elevation is not appreciated by the Commission i.e. the architectural elements used in the facade do not seem to be thoughtfully designed. The canopy and the columns in the elevation (false facade), the proposed elements would have high maintenance as they would attract dust, bird droppings etc. Thus, it is strongly suggested to redesign the entire elevation with architectural elements/vocabulary which are integrated into the design rather than being a false façade.

b. The capacity of the dining hall is missing in the submission. Also, the furniture layout to understand the functioning of the space is required.

B. Residential building:

a. The proposed elevation is not appreciated by the Commission i.e. the architectural elements used in the facade do not seem to be thoughtfully designed. The proposed design scheme shows no provision of a sun-shade mechanism in the facade. It shall be incorporated in the design scheme from inception to avoid unauthorised constructions at a later stage by the residents.

b. Also, the proposed elements would have high maintenance as the false façade etc. would attract dust, bird droppings etc. Thus, it is strongly suggested to redesign the entire elevation with architectural elements/vocabulary which are integrated into the design.

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

d. The parking provided on the surface is suggested to be relocated to the basement to open up the surface for consolidated green and recreational spaces, which can be utilised by the residents.

e. Also, the proposed design scheme seems to have scattered greens which would not be useful to the residents. It is suggested to re-design the green spaces in such a way that they are consolidated into bigger chunks.

f. The ramp for entry to the basement if intended to be covered at later stage is integrated in the design stage itself to ensure no piecemeal modifications are done at later stages to avoid incoherence in the design.

C. General Observations:

a. Skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

b. The boundary wall and entrance gate would have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex, but the details are missing in the submission. Thus, need to be designed appropriately and highlighted with relevant details (including plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) for the consideration of the Commission.

c. Air-conditioners/ outdoor units could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, the provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the air-conditioners/ outdoor units in the design, at an initial stage, so as not to mar the urban aesthetics of the facade. Therefore, a scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material of screening for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views.

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

e. 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.

f. 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.

g. 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.

h. 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.

Found conceptually unsuitable, observations given.
The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

13

Building plans proposal in respect of Multi-storeyed New Office building and residential buildings (Phase-III) at Varunalaya Complex, Jhandewalan for Delhi Jal Board. (Conceptual stage)

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

2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual 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 the submission made the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission opines that the proposal is at a very important location in Delhi.  The proposal cannot be studied in isolation i.e. it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities. Site photographs of the complex, showing the existing buildings and the trees on the site are not submitted. An appropriate number of site photographs from various angles (along with bird’s eye-view etc.) need to be submitted to clearly explain the scheme and site surroundings. Also, 3D views of the site shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings including road networks, and structures around the site, for a better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.

b. For a better understanding of the design proposal, annotated 3D views (including night views, to understand the 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. Skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

c. The integration of the proposed building is not understood in the scheme as the 3d views of various details along with appropriate site sections are missing. An appropriate number of 3d views of the residential and office complex to be submitted with details of drop-off points, common areas, lift lobbies, reception area etc. for a better understanding of the interior areas as well.

d. Community facilities (including recreational areas) seem to be missing for the residents. the design shall include dedicated spaces for kids, the elderly etc. to make the complex inclusive. Also, all such areas shall be appropriately screened for safety/security and privacy of the residents from the commercial and office areas. Also, the scheme does not show any boundary segregating the various uses in the site, which need to be clearly depicted in the respective layout. For effective screening various mechanisms including vertical gardens etc. to be explored.

e. The supplemented images seem to be reference images and not proposed 3d-views; thus, they are very deceptive and create confusion in the scheme. To explain the scheme better the sources for the images shall be provided to distinguish between them.

f. The entry and exit to the site are not understood i.e. the approach road, and access to various blocks in the existing context are missing. The same should be detailed and clearly indicated with the actual context of the site & surroundings.

g. The site sections provided in the submission are not appropriate i.e. the site being contoured needs to have detailed site sections (longitudinal and cross-sections) clearly showing level differences to understand the connections within the site. Also, an appropriate number of site sections (cross-sections through the site) with existing development in the site is to be submitted for a holistic understanding of the overall scheme.

h. The boundary wall and entrance gate would have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex and thus need to be designed appropriately and highlighted with relevant details (including plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.).

i. Submitted landscape plans lack clarity and need to be improved with appropriate treatment (Hardscape & Softscape). Existing trees on the site should be superimposed with relevant details and be submitted in the respective drawings, and also indicate details of trees planted, types of species on an appropriate scale, (in terms of the point nos. Six of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval)) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

j. The proposal seems to include the cutting of trees to accommodate the proposal. Thus, a superimposed plan clearly showing the number of trees cut/transplanted to be marked on the site.

k. 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.

l. Air-conditioners/ outdoor units could be an eye-sore to the building façade (especially in the residential units). To avoid the same, the provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the air-conditioners/ outdoor units in the design, at an initial stage, so as not to mar the urban aesthetics of the facade. Therefore, a scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material of screening for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views.

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

n. Utilities provisions in the balconies of the residential units should be screened appropriately along with the provision of screening for drying of clothes. Innovative architectural features and materials shall screen dish antennas in the balconies.

o. The surface parking provided near the residential units is suggested to be relocated to the basement to open up the surface for green spaces which can be utilised by the residents.

p. The Commission observed that the roof terraces are to be utilised appropriately to install solar panels as 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.

q. 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. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory. The sequence of the sheets is not in order; therefore, the scheme is not understood clearly. 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.

Found conceptually unsuitable, observations given.
The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

  The following were present at the Meeting of the Commission held on Thursday, May 26, 2022, from 02.30 PM onwards:

 1.      Shri Ajit Pai, Chairman, DUAC

2.      Shri Ashutosh Kumar Agarwal, Member, DUAC 

3.     Smt. Nivedita Pande, Member, DUAC