MINUTES OF THE 1653rd MEETING OF THE DELHI URBAN ART COMMISSION (DUAC) HELD ON THURSDAY, JUNE 02, 2022.

A.   A. The minutes of the 1652nd meeting of the Delhi Urban Art Commission held on 26.05.2022 were confirmed and approved.

SL. No.PROPOSALOBSERVATIONS /SUGGESTIONSDECISIONREMARKS

B.

Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1651st meeting held on 19.05.2022.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1651st meeting held on 19.05.2022 was discussed.

Noted by the Commission.

C. PROJECT PROPOSALS:

1Revised building plans proposal for Addition/alteration in respect of Group Housing complex at Magazine Road, Khyber Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi.

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

2. The Commission approved the revised layout of the Group housing complex at Magazine Road, Khyber Pass, Civil Lines at its meeting held on April 08, 2015, and the building plan was approved in the meeting held on April 19, 2016. The proposal for additions/alterations was approved in the meeting of the Commission held on August 14, 2020, and specific observations were given.

3. The Commission accepted the concept of the revised layout and the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of new towers E (main units), K1 (for service personnel), and K2 (EWS units)) at its meeting held on May 12, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. The revised layout and the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of new towers E (main units), K1 (for service personnel), and K2 (EWS units)) received (online) at the formal stage were scrutinised along with the replies submitted in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-28042227032 dated 19.05.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. Automated/Stack parking provisions have been shown in the design proposal to achieve the requisite parking requirements. The architect/proponent shall ensure its actual execution at the site and the same shall be examined at the time of receiving the proposal at the completion stage.

b. 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.

c. 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. 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.

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

2Layout and building plans in respect of proposed Group Housing on 7.87 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 layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 08, 2021, and specific observations were given.

3. The layout and the building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage were scrutinised along with the replies submitted in response to previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-03032127019 dated 19.04.2021. Based on the replies submitted, and the submission made at the formal stage, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a. Stack parking provisions have been shown in the design proposal to achieve the requisite parking requirements. The architect/proponent shall ensure its actual execution at the site and the same shall be examined at the time of receiving the proposal at the completion stage.

b. The Commission observed that the area for Retail has not been sufficiently detailed (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.). Retail Shops have been shown without internal dimensions, toilets etc. also need to be detailed to understand its working & efficiency. Also, the quality of 3d Views, birds-eye views, elevations and sections provided is not appreciated, need to be detailed and clearly show the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

c. The provision of air-conditioning units is not given in the proposal for Retail (drawings/3d views). The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, the provision shall be made to accommodate the outdoor units, so as not to mar the aesthetics. The area accommodating the DG set etc. should be suitably screened, including DG exhaust pipes, using appropriate architectural mechanisms so as not to remain visible, and mar the aesthetics of the complex.

d. Since ‘Retail’ is facing the main road and is the Public interface, a planned scheme of signages & hoardings is to be created to maintain uniformity and enable facade control.

e. 3D views of the High Street Retails are giving an impression that the whole area, up to the edge of the road, belongs to the property, the area (the public footpath) under municipal ownership is to be clearly demarcated & segregated and shown to understand the overall design scheme for a public plaza for the High Street Retail.

f. The component of the Overhead Sky Bridge has been shown on Public land need vetting by the local body and hence not been considered by the Commission.

g. 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 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.

Approved (except Retail, public plaza, Overhead sky bridge), observations given.

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


3Completion plans proposal in respect of Recreation Club Building at Pocket-5, Sector-B, Vasant Kunj.

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 March 31, 2017.

3. The building plan proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised and found acceptable.

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

4Building plans proposal for the addition of New Block in Delhi Archives & Cultural Hub at Satsang Vihar.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for Delhi Archives (G+5) at its meeting held on December 18, 1980.

3. The building plan proposal for the addition of a new building block (Cultural Block (2B+G+5) and Archives Block (2B+G+2)) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal is at the formal stage and the submitted 3d views are very sketchy and not acceptable at the formal stage. Moreover, the design scheme has been submitted through fragmented 3d views which do not portray a comprehensive picture of the entire site. The proposal forms a part of an existing site complex, and thus cannot be seen in isolation. Thus, the submitted 3d views shall clearly show the entire site with details of integration of the existing and proposed architectural details.

b. The 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. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (including birds' eye views, night-time views etc.) 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. The unison between the existing and the proposed development is not seen in the submission. The design should ensure harmony between the existing and the proposed complex. Detailed views of the proposed and existing blocks are to be submitted to ensure completeness in the submission and also to ensure the design scheme is seen in unison.

d. Detailed 3d views of the critical points like the public interface areas should be given with materials specifications should be supplemented for a better understanding of the overall design scheme.

e. An appropriate number of detailed sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) should be provided clearly highlighting the materials, finishes, architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. for a better understanding of the overall scheme. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

f. The placement of the proposed building is very close to the existing footprint. The distance between the two should be clearly marked along with details of the connecting path including appropriate 3d views, sections etc.

g. Proper drop-off areas for the auditorium (370-seater) are missing in the proposed design scheme. The details of the same are to be supplemented in the design scheme.

h. Surface parking provisions have been made for 13 no. of car parking right in front of the stepped court thus spoiling the ambience and atmosphere of the proposed public spaces. It is strongly suggested to relocate the parking may be to the basement.

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 species of trees being cut for construction is not specified in the proposal and needs to be clearly mentioned to explain the scheme clearly.

k. The elements of sustainability are missing in the proposed 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. A lot of roof spaces are available which can be utilised to install solar panels and help reduce carbon footprint & maximise energy efficiency. The details of the auditorium i.e. green terrace are missing thus making the submission incomplete. 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. Location of DG Set, DG exhaust pipes etc. should be provided with a screening mechanism. All service equipment, plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, 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 detailed and comprehensive.

5. Considering the facts enumerated above, the architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of 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.

5Building plans proposal in respect of IOCL Petrol pump at Khasra no. 36/19, 36/22/1, 36/22/2 Village Mamoorpur, Narela.

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 May 12, 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-09052223026 dated 19.05.2022, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online wherein he provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the replies submitted, the discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. Considering the availability of expansive horizontal area above the fuel dispensers, the architect has assured to propose solar photovoltaic panels to the extent possible and help reduce the carbon footprint. These should be designed appropriately 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.

b. 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.

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 Motel Building on Khasra no. 22/10, 11, 23/6,7,8/2/1, 15, 23/7, 14/1, 8/2/1, 15,16/1 at Village Samalkha.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 04, 2020, September 4, 2019, and 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 letter no: OL-29082055050 dated 10.09.2020. The Commission intended to discuss the design proposal with the concerned architect online, but he was not available. Based on the replies submitted and the submission made at the formal stage, 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 observation letter no: OL-29082055050 dated 10.09.2020 inadequate compliance for this has been given.

b. The proposal is at the formal stage and located at a very important location in the city, the 3d views have been submitted without better viewing angles and do not present overall clarity of the site, façade, material specification etc. in a judicious manner for the Commission to comment on.

c. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views of the site (including bird-eye views of the whole site, and night-time views to understand the lighting better) at various angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme corresponding to proposal drawings be submitted for a better understanding of the proposal.

d. The Commission also observed that the proposal is for a motel building with diverse use for the public (including retail, restaurants, offices, guest rooms entrance lounge, outdoor landscaped seating areas, drop off areas at the main reception lobby, near taxi pick up-drop off point at the rear side, common lobby areas, ballrooms, swimming pool areas etc.) their detailed views should also be submitted for the consideration of the Commission for better understanding of the overall design scheme with design elements, material specifications etc.

e. The design proposal is at the formal stage, but only two basic elevations have been provided. Due to the typical shape of the proposed building, an appropriate number of detailed elevations and sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) should be provided clearly highlighting the materials, finishes, architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. for better understanding of the overall scheme. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

f. Similarly, Block-C is also part of the formal submission but their detailed elevations/sections/3D views, details of landscaped terrace etc. have not been provided. The design scheme should be accordingly revised and incorporated for review by the Commission.

g. 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.

h. 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.

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

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 complete and 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 the above observations 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.

7Plans proposal for additions/alterations in respect of Residential building at Plot no. 22, Bazar Lane, Bengali Market.

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

2. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the comments given by the concerned local body i.e. NDMC, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the 3D views and the project report are missing in the submission submitted for the consideration of the Commission.

b. The entire proposal shall adhere to all the applicable statutory provisions, and norms/regulations of the prevailing Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ) guidelines.

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

d. 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.

e. 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.

f. All water tanks, plumbing pipes, 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. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not complete for a proposal at the formal stage. The proposal needs to be complete.

4. 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 the above observations 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.

8Building plans proposal in respect of Commercial building at Asset LP-1B-03 (Gateway district), Aerocity, IGI Airport.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout for Gateway and Downtown District at IGI Airport at its meeting held on March 16, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The 3D views have been submitted without annotations thus making it difficult to comprehend the materials etc. on the façade, which could have a bearing on the visual, urban aesthetics of the complex. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (including public interface areas, triple-height entrance lobbies, triple-height pedestrian ways, bird-eye views of the whole site, and night-time views to understand the lighting better) 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 proposal.

b. The design proposal is at the formal stage, but very basic elevations & sections have been provided. An appropriate number of detailed sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) & elevations should be provided clearly highlighting the materials, finishes, architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. for a better understanding of the overall scheme. Also, the skin sections (in detail) should be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

c. Discrepancies have been observed in the drawings, in one of the drawings (ground floor plan) some of the areas have been demarcated as ‘multi-purpose’ and in other drawings, it is shown as ‘retail’. The proposal is at the formal stage, the drawings should be corrected and ensured to be correlated to each other.

d. As the submission is at the formal stage, internal sizes/dimensions for F & B, retail, office spaces, internal corridors etc. are missing, the same should be provided.

e. Provision of a food court with 13 no. kiosks have been made in basement-1, but their capacity and the dimensions are missing. This area needs to be detailed with the location of the kitchen & associated services, exhaust mechanisms etc. and resubmitted. Also, to understand the functioning of this area i.e. seating, servicing, movement etc. a detailed functional furniture layout should be clearly marked in the respective layouts.

f. 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.

g. The location of the DG and its exhaust pipes is to be clearly marked along with an appropriate screening mechanism.

h. 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.

i. 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., the details 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 the above observations 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.

9Plans proposal in respect of Demolition and reconstruction of Residential Building at Plot no. 14 Hailey Road.

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

2. The building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction (Basement+Stilts+Ground+03 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The quality of 3d views is not appropriate. The scale, proportion, materials etc. are not understood. Annotated 3D views clearly specifying the materials to be used on the façade shall be provided. The 3D views have been submitted without annotations thus making it difficult to comprehend the materials etc. on the façade, which could have a bearing on the visual, urban aesthetics of the complex.

b. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (at least 6 in numbers) 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 proposal. Also, the skin sections (in detail) should be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

c. The submitted elevation is not appreciated by the Commission as it does not reflect any features of heritage character from the existing building. The elevation seems to be designed without keeping in mind the heritage context and the siting of the complex. Thus, the elevation needs to be revised strongly considering the fact that the building would be located in the vicinity of the LBZ area and should have rich elements borrowed from the design of LBZ areas.

d. The areas for drop-off are not clear in the submission and shall be clearly marked in the proposal along with other relevant details including detailed 3d views.

e. The submission shows stilt parking to accommodate the requisite car parking requirements for the project. It is suggested that alternative options should be explored including basement parking to accommodate requisite car parking requirements and the stilt floor be utilised for community facilities etc. This would also improve the circulation around the site and reduce the requirement of the hardscape all around the building complex.

f. Considering the huge size of the plot, the site lacks consolidated greens for the user which is not appreciated by the Commission. The site shall be designed in such a manner that large consolidated green spaces are carved out for the users for recreational purposes.

g. 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.).

h. A combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement (connecting external areas to various parts of the site) to be submitted, to understand the circulation within the site.

i. Seamless pedestrian movement shall be ensured throughout the site, which shall be linked to all parts of the complex (internal and external) and be landscaped appropriately with covered/shaded walkways. All details shall be marked clearly on respective layout plans.

j. To understand the internal functioning of the units better, a detailed functional furniture arrangement of a typical unit should be submitted.

k. 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.

l. The lift and staircase (core) areas do not seem to be ventilated. Appropriate provisions need to be made for the same to ensure the core area is not left dark and unsafe for the users.

m. Retractable roofing arrangements have been made on the terrace, but its relevant details are missing including the functioning, material etc. and need to be clearly marked in the submission along with the relevant details including materials, functioning etc.

n. The proposal shall be designed so as to maximise energy efficiency with appropriate use of the solar panels on building rooftops etc. and screen them by using appropriate architectural mechanisms. 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.

o. 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.

3. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., the details are not sufficiently provided for a proposal at the formal stage. The proposal needs to be detailed and comprehensive.

4. 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 the above observations 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.

10Development/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 proposal is withdrawn at the request of the architect/proponent.

Withdrawn at the request of the architect/proponent, hence returned.
The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

11Development/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 proposal is withdrawn at the request of the architect/proponent.

Withdrawn at the request of the architect/proponent, hence returned.
The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

12

Building plans proposal in respect of New Building at Todapur for Functioning of Traffic Offices.  (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 accept the concept of the proposal at its meetings held on December 02, 2021, and March 03, 2022, respectively, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-28022227018 dated 08.03.2022. Based on 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 observation letter no: OL-28022227018 dated 08.03.2022 inadequate compliance for this has been given.

b. The 3d views show the provision of suspended columns in the elevation, and its use in the design scheme is not understood. The elevation shall be revised for a cleaner and proportionate use of elements that makes the façade easier to maintain and age better.

c. Also, the material combination of Dholpur stone with the three options presented is not appreciated by the Commission. The elevation (lower and upper floors) are in stark contrast with each other, needs reconsideration to have some common architectural elements. It is suggested to explore alternative options for the materials by looking at examples from some newly constructed government buildings in the LBZ area with rich architectural character, form, material combination etc. 

4. Considering the facts enumerated above, the architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of 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.

D. ADDITIONAL DETAILS:

1Completion plan proposal in respect of Residential building at plot no. 76, Block No. 171, Sunder Nagar.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plans at its meeting on October 29, 2014. The Commission approved the revised building plan proposal at its meeting held on December 28, 2018.

3. The building plan proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised and the following observation is to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal is at the completion stage but cropped photographs of the completion plan proposal have been submitted which do not clearly indicate the required details. An appropriate number of the built construction for which NOC is required (including boundary wall, gate, garage, spiral staircase, servant room, guard room, parking, landscape, elevational façade) to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides to comprehend the proposal evidently.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided by the architect, the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission.

5. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and resubmit the proposal for NOC for completion once all the construction work at the site is complete along with pointwise incorporation & reply.

NOC for completion not accepted, observations given.
The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.
2Completion plan proposal in respect of Integrated Election Complex at Village Bhaktawarpur.

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 December 28, 2017, and February 27, 2019, respectively, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised and the following observation is to be complied with:

a. The Commission has taken a note of the fact that the building plan proposal has not been approved by the DUAC, in view of the letter of sanction issued by the North DMC vide their letter no: 10044278 dated 21.02.2021, provided by the architect, wherein the remarks were given by the concerned sanctioning authority are as under:

“…… the NOC of DFS and DUAC was deemed approved by the system due to crossing of threshold time limit…..”

The Commission has taken a note that the date mentioned on the approval letter of the sanctioning authority is 21.02.2021 whereas the proposal was not approved in the meeting of the Commission held on 27.02.2019 which is factually incorrect and misleading. However, since the proposal has been forwarded by the concerned local body i.e. North DMC for consideration of the Commission, in the interest of work the Commission decided to consider it on the basis of previous observations of the Commission as per its mandate as prescribed under relevant provisions of DUAC Act 1974.

b. The Commission observed that the proposal is at the completion stage but cropped photographs of the completed building have been submitted which do not clearly indicate the required details. An appropriate number of the built construction for which NOC is required (including boundary wall, gate, guard room, parking, landscape, elevational façade, toilet constructed under Swachh Bharat Scheme) to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides to comprehend the proposal.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided by the architect, the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission.

5. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and resubmit the proposal for NOC along with pointwise incorporation & reply.

NOC for completion not accepted, 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, June 02, 2022, from 02.30 PM onwards:

1.      Shri Ajit Pai, Chairman, DUAC

2.      Prof. (Dr) Mandeep Singh, Member, DUAC

3.      Shri Ashutosh Kumar Agarwal, Member, DUAC

4.      Smt. Nivedita Pande, Member, DUAC