Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1649th meeting held on 05.05.2022.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1649th meeting held on 05.05.2022 was discussed.

Layout and building plans in respect of proposed Group Housing on 2.89 Hect. on RLDA land adjoining Swami Narayan Marg, Ashok Vihar (for M/s Godrej Green Woods Private Ltd.)

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

2. The Commission accepted the concept of the building plans proposal at its meeting held on April 08, 2021, and specific observations were given.

3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-03032127020 dated 19.04.2022. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect but he was not available. Based on the previous observations given and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal is surrounded by 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 i.e. 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.

b. The Commission observed that the proposal is at formal stage and 3d views of each block (type-1C, 2C, 1A, 1B, Retail (1,2,3), clubhouse, HSD Yard, Toilet under Swachh Bharat mission, milk booth 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.

c. The Commission observed that the design scheme is at formal stage but the detailed drawings (including 3D views) of the Retail-1, Retail-2, Retail-3, HSD Yard, milk booth, 3D views of the toilet under Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) etc. which are also part of the formal submission are missing. It should be ensured that the detailed coordinated drawings of each component should be submitted for the consideration of the Commission.

d. The frontage development has been proposed along the main road as Retail-1, Retail-2, and Retail-3  which would be accessible to the pedestrians from the main road. Pedestrian movement (circulation and pattern) needs to be detailed and presented (including 3D views (night time as well), 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.

e. From the photographs submitted by the architect/proponent, it was observed that a lot of trees/plantation exists on the site. To understand the number of trees that are likely to be cut and their exact position, it was suggested to superimpose the survey plan (including existing trees etc.) on the layout plan proposal for a better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment.

f. An overhead bridge has been planned to connect plot-A to plot B across the road. The Commission observed that the overhead bridge could impact the overall visual and urban aesthetics of the entire site and the area.  Therefore, a separate detailed proposal of the same like Height, width, material specifications, and design details incorporated with an appropriate number of  3D views (including nighttime to understand the lighting scheme better) be submitted for the consideration of the Commission.

g. The requisite parking requirements of the site (including current and future development) should be appropriately detailed. An appropriate scheme should be developed with a maximum FAR to avoid later impediments.   

h. 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 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.

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 shall be submitted.

j. 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.

k. 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.

l. 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.

m.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.

n. 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.

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

p. The terrace should be utilised to the extent possible for installing 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 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.

r. 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.

Building plans proposal in respect of Residential building, at 4240/5, Plot no. 27, Kothi No. 2, Ansari Road, Daryaganj.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on February 10, 2022, and specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) was scrutinised and the following observation is to be complied with:

a. All water tanks, 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.

Building plan proposal in respect of the redevelopment of HPCL retail outlet (Shanti Service Station) Delhi- Mathura Road at Madanpur Khadar, Freight Complex.

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

2. The building plan proposal for the redevelopment of HPCL Retail Outlet received (online) was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The architect in its project report has indicated the following:

“……redevelopment is due to extra provision of CNG facilities…….CNG supply is through an online pipe system and there is no CNG yard within the retail outlet & the compressor + cascade etc. are kept at the adjacent IGL outlet…..”

But, no such facilities (including DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc.) have been shown by the architect. The Commission understood that these facilities are an essential part of a CNG station and would like to know how these facilities are screened and camouflaged to avoid marring the aesthetics.

b. The work of art submitted is not appreciated by the Commission. Some other theme-based alternatives should be explored and presented through 3D views etc. for the consideration of the Commission.

c. It has been observed that a large chunk of space is available on the rooftop of the building, the same should be utilised to the fullest and help contribute in reducing 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.

d. The offices, sales rooms’ etc. seem to be air-conditioned and their air conditioning mechanism is not clear. The Commission observed that the exposed outdoor air conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade, thereby spoiling the visual and urban aesthetics of the area. Innovative design provisions should be made to screen the outdoor AC units, and it shall be ensured that the pipes are appropriately screened so that they are not exposed on the outer façade.

e. All service equipment, outdoor air conditioners, water tanks, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, solar panels, plumbing pipes etc. at the terrace should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) 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.

Development/Redevelopment plans proposal in respect of proposed Executive Enclave (Block A) at plot no.36, 1 Dalhousie Road.

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

2. The building plan proposal for the development/redevelopment in respect of the proposed Executive Enclave (Block A) at plot no.36, 1 Dalhousie Road received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-28032262008 dated 06.04.2022, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect  (online) through Cisco Web Ex meetings, wherein he provided clarifications to the queries of the Members of the Commission. Based on the discussion held, and the revised submission made, the following observations were given:

a. The Commission observed and appreciated that a lot of improvements have been made in the overall design after incorporating some of its previous suggestions. Further, the Commission opines that considering the National importance of the building some of the remaining suggestions may also be incorporated.

b. The base of the columns as seen in the landscaped court and other verandahs/porches/colonnades have sharp edges and are likely to chip/fragment with the rough maintenance and movement that occurs in public buildings and also hospitality suites.  Thus either they should be chamfered or rounded to ensure their durability in aesthetics.

c. The rooftop utilities have been shown in the 3D views, but the same is not reflected in the subsequent section drawings. Also, the dimensions are found to be missing in the section drawings due to which it was difficult to visualise how the screening of the rooftop utilities has been done.  Also, the components of sustainability including air-conditioning mechanism, water pipes, plumbing mechanism etc. are not clearly elucidated in the submission, the same should be duly incorporated in the revised submission along with the arrangements envisaged for the screening mechanism.

d. The reference images submitted for the benches with ‘motifs’ engraved on top were not appreciated as they could collect dust etc. and get spoiled (slide 3.5(a) Motifs). It should be ensured that the top of the benches remains free of any motifs.

e. The air conditioning mechanism needs to be more detailed. Also, it shall be ensured that there is no leakage from the AC unit causing deterioration of spaces (indoor and outdoor).

f. All plumbing pipes, water tanks, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes, service equipment, 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. Considering the facts enumerated above, the architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

Development/Redevelopment plans proposal in respect of Proposed Executive Enclave (Block B) at plot no.38, 1 Kamraj Road.

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

2. The building plan proposal for the Development/Redevelopment plans proposal in respect of Proposed Executive Enclave (Block B) at plot no.38, 1 Kamraj Road received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-28032262007 dated 06.04.2022, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect  (online) through Cisco Web Ex meetings, wherein he provided clarifications to the queries of the Members of the Commission. Based on the discussion held, and the revised submission made, the following observations were given:

a. The Commission observed and appreciated that a lot of improvements have been made in the overall design after incorporating some of its previous suggestions. Further, the Commission opines that considering the National importance of the building some of the remaining suggestions may also be incorporated.

b. The rooftop utilities have been shown in the 3D views, but the same is not reflected in the subsequent section drawings. Also, the dimensions are found to be missing in the section drawings due to which it was difficult to visualise how the screening of the rooftop utilities has been done.  Also, the components of sustainability including air-conditioning mechanism, water pipes, plumbing mechanism etc. are not clearly elucidated in the submission, the same should be duly incorporated in the revised submission along with the arrangements envisaged for the screening mechanism.

c. The reference images submitted for the benches with ‘motifs’ engraved on top were not appreciated as they could collect dust etc. and get spoiled (slide 3.5(a) Motifs). It should be ensured that the top of the benches remains free of any motifs.

d. The air conditioning mechanism needs to be more detailed. Also, it shall be ensured that there is no leakage from the AC unit causing deterioration of spaces (indoor and outdoor).

e. All plumbing pipes, water tanks, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes, service equipment, 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. Considering the facts enumerated above, the architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

Building plans proposal for addition/alteration in respect of Vasundhara CGHS Ltd at Plot No. 01B, Sector-22, Dwarka

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 May 5, 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-27042222026 dated 11.05.2022. 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-27042222026 dated 11.05.2022 inadequate compliances for this have been given.

b. It was observed that the architect has been submitting the design proposal again and again (it has been rejected three times before as well on the similar observations) without much improvement which is not appreciated by the Commission.

c. 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.

d. Also, it should be ensured that all rainwater pipes from the proposed balconies be 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.

e. 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.

f. 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. The 3D views submitted have varying designs of the balconies which are not appreciated by the Commission.

g. 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.

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

i. 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.

j. 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.

k. 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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on April 1, 2022, and specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (demolition of an existing spiral staircase, the addition of a fire escape staircase (from ground floor to terrace), passenger lift and a lift lobby) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and it was also observed that no previous record of its approval/NOC was found in the available record of the Commission, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed while considering the case for additions/alterations (demolition of an existing spiral staircase, the addition of a fire escape staircase (from ground floor to terrace), passenger lift and a lift lobby) it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This proposal concerns the case for additions/alterations only.

b. The building plan proposal is for the additions/alterations to the existing building. From the photographs submitted by the architect, it is observed that a lot of exposed outdoor air conditioners & plumbing pipes are spoiling the facade of the superstructure. It is suggested that an overall revamp scheme of the whole façade should be envisaged for better visual & aesthetics and to avoid mitigating the visual inconsistency between the old and new construction/additions with screening mechanisms to screen all exposed outdoor air conditioners and plumbing (including rainwater pipes) so as not to mar the aesthetics.