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

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

a)  The Commission observed that the proposal is at the Formal level, but the quality of submitted drawings is unsatisfactory and found to be not comprehensible. The 3d views are unclear and do not provide a correct picture of the materials on the facade. 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.

b)  Existing site photographs do not provide a clear understanding of the site, thus difficult to appreciate and visualize the proposal in the current context. An appropriate nos. of site photographs shall be provided to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides.

c)  The submitted elevations are suggested to be relooked to enhance the scale and grandness of the building with appropriate architectural elements. The façade seems to be cluttered i.e. too many design elements. Overall aesthetics to be improved, architectural elements to be simplified. The elevational features on the terrace are to be adequately detailed. It shall be resubmitted with all necessary details and duly annotated with materials used to explain the scheme in detail (including 3D views).

d)  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.

e)  The Commission observed that the required number of parking provisions have been accommodated in the two basements provided. But, a lot of additional parking has also been shown on the surface in the setbacks. Parking on the surface of the site has a bearing on the urban aesthetics and environment of the area which shall be removed and the freed-up spaces can be put to judicious use including open greens, recreational spaces etc.

f)  Also, provisions have been made for one car lift only to cater to the parking provided in the two basements which appears to be insufficient, thus it is suggested to provide a minimum of two car lifts at different locations with entry and exits for better accessibility and navigation purposes.

g)  The project is submitted at the Formal stage therefore, 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, plumbing details etc.  Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

h)  The design of the gate and the boundary wall would have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex, thus elevation and a detailed section complete in all respect shall be provided including gate/grill detail, material applications etc.

i)  Universal accessibility shall be ensured throughout the school campus including internal areas as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

j)  The work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the building, at an appropriate level (human eye) which is also visible from the outside, to be installed.

k)  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. The screening for the same shall also be mentioned and marked clearly in the plans/3D views. 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)  The landscape details submitted are not sufficient to explain the scheme properly. It needs to be revised and submitted in the respective drawings, shall indicate the details of the trees planted, existing trees, levels, 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.

m)  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 using the same architectural elements and materials.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 08, 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-06072155028 dated 17.07.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted 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 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 North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

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

a)   The Commission observed that a substantial part of the area at the rear and adjacent to the site office has been marked as ‘equipment area’ with a gate and fencing around it. Being an IGL station a lot of equipment of varying scale and sizes are likely to be accommodated in that area, but the same has not been shown in the 3d views thereby not giving a complete picture of the proposal which could spoil the visual and urban aesthetic of the complex. Accordingly, the 3d Views shall be revised and co-related with the plans and resubmitted.

b)   Also, the location of other utilities like water tanks, solar panels etc. is missing in the submission which is an essential part of the IGL station and could impact the visual and urban aesthetic of the complex. A lot of space is available on the terraces where these utilities can be suitably accommodated. The same shall be revised with their locations in the plans/elevations/3d views/sections and resubmitted.

c)    Similarly, the area and location for the air filling area shall also be marked and shown in the submission.

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. 

e)   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.

3. The architect is advised to adhere to all the observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 12, 2010, and the NOC for completion plan proposal was approved in the meeting held on February 19, 2014. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of one more floor above on blocks 1 & 2) and addition of new block (Block-3) in the meeting of the Commission held on June 12, 2019, specific observations were given. 

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 01, 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-29062161012 dated 07.07.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted following observations are to be complied with: 

a)  In terms of the decision of the Commission taken at its meeting held on July 01, 2021, a set of common observations related to the school building was sent to the PWD for compliances so that, if complied adequately, all future proposals related to the schools building could be approved by the Commission expeditiously.

b)  The Commission reiterated its earlier observation that options to relocate surface parking in the basement shall be explored to utilise the spaces on the surface for purposes like green open areas, areas for recreational use etc. Not adhering to these provisions would have a bearing on the visual and the urban aesthetics of the area, hence, it is strongly suggested to relocate the parking in the basement. 

c)  In one of the replies submitted by the architect, it has been mentioned that:

“…… basement cannot be proposed…….for safety purpose of students and any unforeseen mishappenings….” 

The Commission is of the view that security is an enforcement issue and can be resolved by efficient management. Also, parking is a concern especially during events like PTM, annual days etc. where it is often seen that the spill over is on the public roads. Thus, to avoid the same the parking shall be provided inside the campus as per norms for all types of users.

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

2. The Commission approved only the Master Plan of the new campus of Ambedkar University at its meeting held on June 10, 2021, but did not approve the building plan proposal for individual blocks and the specific observations were given.

3. The proposal for individual building plans for auditorium block, administrative block, library block, academic blocks (1,2,3,4), theatre and convention block, sports and health care block, multilevel car parking block (MLCP), residential building type II, III, IV, V, VI, hostel buildings (boys/girls), VVIP Guesthouse, VC bungalow, clubhouse, shops/café/utilities, entry gates, boundary wall received (online) 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-01062161010 dated 18.06.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted 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 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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction at its meeting held on July 01, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction received (online) 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-24062124019, 24(19)/2021-DUAC dated 08.07.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted following observations are to be complied with:  

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

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.

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 July 17, 1998, and the NOC for completion plan proposal was approved in the meeting held on May 26, 2005. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on November 19, 2018, specific observations were given.

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

a)  The scheme for the proposed additions/alterations has been presented through unclear photographs of a model. The submitted photographs do not portray the scheme appropriately. Also, the model photographs do not match with the design submitted (double stack parking arrangements made throughout the site have not been shown in the model photographs) and are found to be inappropriate for the formal submission. The Commission opines that it could spoil the visual and urban aesthetics of the complex and thus is not appreciated by the Commission. 

b)  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, including double-stack parking provisions, be submitted for getting a true picture and better understanding of the proposal. 

c)  Existing site photographs do not provide a clear understanding of the existing complex, thus difficult to appreciate and visualize the proposal in the current context. An appropriate nos. of site photographs shall be provided to get in-depth clarity of the site. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides. 

d)  Provision of proposed parking not clearly understood. Parking is placed haphazardly all over the site. Moreover, double-stack parking provisions have been made to convert all available open spaces to double-stack parking without any thought process and severely impacting the overall aesthetic, environmental and visual quality of the whole complex. The parking does not seem practical/functional. 

e)  The details of the existing number of car parks + additional parking provided are not given in the submission, thereby not providing clear information as to how the additional parking will be addressed. As not addressing the parking requirements would severely impact the overall aesthetic, environmental, and visual quality of the complex/area. 

f)   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. 

g)  Existing photographs indicate the outdoor air-conditioners all over the façade. It was suggested to prepare a scheme to make provisions for screening of the outdoor air conditioners at least in the proposed scheme for additions/alterations so as not to mar the aesthetics. 

h)  Appropriate screening arrangements shall be made to ensure screening of clothes hanging in the balconies. 

i)  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. 

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 using the same architectural elements and materials.