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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (for Second floor and elevational changes only) at its meeting held on February 05, 2020, specific observations were given. Later, the Commission did not accept the conceptual scheme for the revised elevations at its meeting held on April 08, 2021, and March 02, 2021, respectively specific observations were given.

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 March 23, 2021, 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-19032123008 dated 26.03.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted the following observations are to be complied with:

a)   The circular staircase provided for the dealers` room above on the first floor shall be removed.

b)   The Pollution checking kiosk shall be moved further back towards the office to create some space between the air filling station & the pollution checking kiosk for the tailing up of the vehicles.  Accordingly, the provisions made for the universal accessibility ramps shall be planned.

c)    The future use area for the CNG shall ensure to be screened including the service equipment at the terrace (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.

d)   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.

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

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

a) Annotated 3D views of the proposed design scheme shall be superimposed on the existing superstructure along with the existing context of the surroundings, including road networks, structures around the site, for a better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer. Also, the quality of the 3d views is not acceptable and shall be enhanced with better visuals.

b) The architect has indicated in his report that the proposal is for the redevelopment and the existing building on the site has been demolished. But, did not substantiate it with sufficient documentation. As the site photographs show a clean site and there are no traces of the demolished building on the site. Clear site pictures need to be supplemented in the proposal. Also, previous approval plans etc. from the concerned agency for the demolished structure needs to be provided.

c) The proposal shows surface parking scattered all over the site. Parking on the surface of the site has a bearing on the urban aesthetics and environment of the area. Alternative options shall be explored by creating a basement and all the required parking can be relocated to the basement. The freed-up space can be put to judicious use including open greens, recreational spaces etc.

d) By appropriately accommodating the required parking into the basement. The presence of Tar road can be minimised on the site. Instead, appropriate pedestrian connections shall be established which are appropriately landscaped. Proper signages are to be provided throughout the site at various locations to ensure proper wayfinding.

e) The porch shall be made more prominent by design improvisation i.e. detailed architectural elements and design. It needs to be modified and made prominent and appropriate to the building scale.

f) The air conditioning mechanisms of the complex shall be detailed and highlighted in the scheme along with its screening as these 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 AC units, if any, at this stage so as not to mar the aesthetics later. A scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views.

g) A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) is supposed to be generated in the complex, thus a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location on the site plan be submitted.

h) For a better understanding of the proposal in the right context, the capacity for the banquet hall its linkages to the other areas shall be indicated in the respective plans.

i) The skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

j) The material and design of the truss are not clear. As the structure is huge, it would have a bearing on the urban aesthetics, and thus it would be essential to provide the details of the same in respective layouts.

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

l) The building being for hospitality use shall be designed so as to utilise maximum sustainable elements in the design including use of solar panels, solar water heaters etc. installed at the terrace. An appropriate number of 3d views shall be supplemented with the installed utilities to ensure a complete view.

m) 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. 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.

n) The location of the DG set, transformer etc. to be located in respective layout plans with appropriate mechanism for its screening so as not to mar the aesthetics. Also,  all the plumbing pipes/sanitary pipes, outdoor AC units, and service equipment at the terrace ensure to 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 using the same architectural elements and materials.

o) The work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level (human eye) to be installed in the Community facilities at appropriate places and shown in the relevant drawings.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on November 10, 2008, and approved the NOC for completion plans proposal at its meeting held on June 1, 2016. The concept for the building plan proposal for (additions/alterations) was accepted in the meeting held on November 20, 2020, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a new building block) 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-11112027083 dated 26.11.2020. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal is at the formal level, but the details supplemented are not comprehensible.

b) 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 (at least 6 in numbers), 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.

c) It is understood that most of the classrooms may not be air-conditioned, but preplanning can be done for potential additions in future. 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 outdoor units, at this stage, so as not to mar the aesthetics.

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

e) Provisions have been made for one car lift only for the access of vehicles in two levels of stilts and one basement which appears to be insufficient, thus it is suggested to provide a minimum of two car lifts in the building.

f) The proposed layout and plans do not reflect the architectural elements shown in the 3d views. The layout and plans need to be revised where all the elements shall be marked to co-relate with the proposed 3d views.

g) The layout plan of the double-height auditorium on the 6th floor shows steps with a substantial level difference but, the same is not reflected in the sections thus there is a mismatch between the drawings. Being a formal submission, it was not appreciated by the Commission. The drawings shall be coordinated with each other and need to be revised and be re-submitted.

h) Since the building use is institutional, a lot of students would be visiting the facility. But the proposal lacks open areas for them to sit and hang out during lunchtime. It is suggested to relocate parking from one of the stilts to the basement and utilise the freed-up space of the stilt area for recreational purposes, community spaces, public use etc. The stilt would provide a covered space for common uses for the students.

i) The details of the truss (material, other details etc.) covering the auditorium on the sixth floor above are not shown/specified in the proposed scheme. The structure is very large would have a bearing on the visual, urban aesthetics of the complex, thus the details of the same are to be supplemented to give a clearer understanding of its design, material, fixing etc.

j) All service equipment 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

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

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

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

2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for the super-speciality block at its meeting held on September 23, 2015.

3. The revised building plans proposal for super speciality block along with the proposal for multilevel car parking received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized 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 previous approval, the master plan of the whole R M L Hospital, waste collection including bio-waste & its disposal, site analysis, assessment of the increase in traffic load around the site, overall circulation in and around the proposed building block, central air conditioning system of the proposed buildings, selection of the façade materials for the MLCP, provisions made for the drivers` room with toilets in the MLCP etc. However, based on the detailed discussion held and revised scheme submitted the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The Commission observed that the proposal is part of the whole RML hospital complex and its master plan for the redevelopment was not provided to the Commission.

b) However, the Commission considered the current proposal and observed that for better navigational purposes and hindrance free circulation in and around the proposed building block, it was suggested to explore the possibility of one-way traffic movement.

c) All service equipment 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

d) 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

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

2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx Meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission on various aspects related to overall air-conditioning strategy including VRV system & its screening, screening of services including plumbing & sanitary pipes etc. However, based on the detailed discussion held and the scheme submitted the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Provision of green areas shall be as per norms/regulations/guidelines etc. in this regard.

b) 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.

c) Outdoor air conditioning units, VRV and the service equipment 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.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 30, 1997.

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of bedrooms, balconies, and toilets etc.) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a)  The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade thereby spoiling the aesthetics of the facade. Innovative design provisions shall be made in the design itself at this stage to accommodate 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.

b) The added balcony 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 strongly to the building and does not impact the safety of the superstructure while addition/alteration.

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 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 

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 addition/alterations (addition of one new block (G+3), and a third floor above on existing second floor) at its meeting held on April 22, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised conceptual building plan proposal for addition/alterations (addition of one new block (G+3), and a third floor above on existing second floor) received (online) at the conceptual 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-09042127033 dated 27.04.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted the following observations are to be complied with:

a) In terms of the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-09042127033 dated 27.04.2021 indicated at sr. no. 2 (c, d, g, h, I, j), and 3 inadequate compliances for this has been given.

b) In the whole scheme location of the playground is not clear. Being school building playground of appropriate size shall be required for the students to play. It needs to be clearly indicated in the respective layout plan along with its pedestrian linkage with the academic block.

c) The proposal being the addition of a floor above on the existing superstructure and one additional block requires additional parking which is not mentioned in the proposal. The same needs to be revised and re-submitted.

d) It is again reiterated that the area for the parking and playground needs to be segregated to ensure safe access for the students. Alternate options (two to three) shall be explored including a basement and podium to accommodate all the parking requirements of the existing and the proposed scheme. The freed-up spaces shall be used judiciously including a playground for students and would also be segregated from vehicular movement, thus making it safe. Also, the site photographs show buses parked on the site. The same is not marked in the layout plan, and thus shall be reflected to indicate usage of spaces in the site.

e) It is understood that most of the classrooms may not be air-conditioned, but preplanning can be done for potential additions in future including the administrative areas, principal rooms etc. which could be using separate air-conditioning units. 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 outdoor units, at this stage, so as not to mar the aesthetics.

f) The design of the gate and the boundary wall has a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex. The details of the gate, boundary wall are to be furnished in the design scheme including plans, sections and 3d views along with details of the materials.

g) 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. 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 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

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