Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1781st meeting held on 01.10.2024.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1781st meeting held on 01.10.2024 were discussed.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission noted that the proposal for the proposed Training Institute had already been reviewed and approved during its meeting on August 22, 2024. The decision was communicated via letter no. OL-19082455113, F. No. 55(113)/2024-DUAC, dated August 29, 2024.
3. Further, the architect vide his email dated October 14, 2024 has indicated that:

“…….While the Training Institute has already been cleared from your end, we have also uploaded the full scheme to give you a comprehensive view of the project….”

4. Taking into consideration the facts as enumerated above, it is found to be approved.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the concept of building plans proposal in respect of studio apartments and staff quarters at its meetings held on July 11, 2019, September 18, 2019, March 04, 2020, respectively and did not approve (formal) the building plans proposal at its January 08, 2021, and August 22, 2024 meetings respectively. 
3. The building plans proposal for Staff quarters and Studio Apartment for National Law University received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-19082455114, F. No. 55(114)/2024-DUAC dated 29.08.2024 and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on CISCO Webex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held online, replies submitted, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal is currently at the formal stage and unsatisfactory compliances to its previous observation outlined in the DUAC letter no:  OL-19082455114, F. No. 55(114)/2024-DUAC dated 29.08.2024 has been given.

b) It was noted that during the previous review of the proposed studio apartment's façade, the Commission observed that the recessed window design with sloping walls appeared neither durable nor well-designed. It was recommended that this design be modified to prevent issues such as dust accumulation and trail marks after rainfall. In response, the architect has submitted two alternative façade design options.

i) Option-1 presents recessed windows with sloping sides on all four edges, including the sill. This design is not acceptable, as it is likely to accumulate dust, develop trail marks after rainfall, and attract bird droppings over time, which would negatively impact the façade's aesthetics. It is recommended to flatten the bottom slope and utilize the interior space for storage. Additionally, to prevent rain marks and dust from spoiling the appearance, it is suggested to paint the bottom wall and horizontal band in a darker shade.

ii) Option -2 features wooden-finished louvres across the entire façade. This design is not recommended, as it would require high maintenance and lack durability. It is advised to avoid incorporating such complex design elements in an institutional building, considering both cost-effectiveness and long-term maintenance requirements.

c) In view of the above, it was again advised to relook at and modified façade shall be submitted for the review of the Commission.

4. Overall, the submission received, along with the responses submitted are unsatisfactory. The architect is advised to adhere to all earlier observations conveyed by the Commission in letter dated August 29,2024 along with the above observations and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations, it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site.

b) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

c) The Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in

d) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission. 
3. The building plan proposal received online at the formal stage for additions and alterations, including partial demolition (Blocks C, D, E, and F to be demolished), retention of two blocks (Residential Block A: Ground floor only and Block B: Garage), the addition of two staircases leading from the ground to the terrace floor in Residential Block A, and the proposal for a spiral staircase in Block B (Garage), as well as the erection of a new building block (ground floor only), the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the proposal is for additions/alterations but no previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.

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.

c) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

d) Since the site is located inside LBZ boundary, the applicable norms/guidelines for LBZ area shall be followed.

e) The Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

f) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

Layout and Building plans proposal in respect of DTC Group Housing at Shadipur. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the layout and building plan proposal (conceptual) at its meetings held on December 14, 2023, and August 29, 2024, respectively, observations were given. 
3. The layout and building plans proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized, along with the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Unsuitable letter no: OL-05122327026 dated 18.12.2023, and OL-23082427058 dated 04.09.2024 respectively. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal online with the principle architectural firm but no response was received. Based on the previous observations given, no response from the principle architectural firm, and revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted with concern that the proposal had already been reviewed twice at the conceptual stage, and this third submission once again (after ten months to its first review by the Commission) shows no significant improvement. Despite previous feedbacks, an incomplete and unclear submission has been presented, failing to address or comply with the earlier observations. This continued lack of response from the project architect is unacceptable. In light of this, the Commission attempted to engage directly with the principal architectural firm online, but they too remain unresponsiveness.

b) A letter of authorization dated 01.10.2024 from the principal architectural firm designates the current submission architect as their employee and “Project Architect.” However, the COA (Council of Architecture) details of the architect have not been provided. Given the lack of substantial progress in the current conceptual submission, and to evaluate the architect’s capacity and capability, the COA details of the designated architect, as mentioned in the authorization letter, must be submitted for the Commission’s records and reference.

c) It is again reiterated as communicated vide DUAC conceptually unsuitable letter no: OL-05122327026 dated 18.12.2023 that:

“…..b)   The 3d views look very sketchy, i.e., details like the materiality of the façade, details of architectural elements etc. need to be provided to ensure clarity in the design. Annotated 3d views from all sides, to be submitted depicting all the architectural details to explain the scheme better.

      c)    It was observed that the necessary drawings in respect of the tower 1, 2, 3, 4, Club House, Amphitheatre, Swimming Pool etc. appears to have been missing in the submission. The same ensures to be provided for the review of the Commission….”

d) The Commission observed that the campus consists of multiple building blocks serving diverse purposes, including residential towers, an EWS block, a clubhouse, a community centre, a school, and a four-level podium parking. It emphasized that the proposal cannot be reviewed in isolation and must be evaluated in relation to the surrounding facilities. Therefore, the Commission recommends that 3D views of the site be superimposed with the actual existing context of the surroundings, incorporating road networks and nearby structures. This will provide a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the proposal within its environment, ensuring a clearer and more informed assessment.

e) Submitted at the conceptual stage after a ten-month gap since the initial review, the quality of the 3D views is inadequate, appearing too sketchy, with unclear scale, proportions, and materials. Annotated 3D views specifying the materials intended for the façade are required. The current submission lacks these annotations, making it difficult to assess the materials and their impact on the complex's visual and urban aesthetics. A sufficient number of clearly marked, self-explanatory, annotated 3D views, including bird's-eye views and drop-off areas, should be provided to better illustrate the proposed design scheme and align with the proposal drawings for clearer understanding.

f) It was observed that parts of the design scheme were presented using single-line diagrams that fail to show essential architectural details such as doors, windows, and other relevant elements. Given that the campus comprises multiple building blocks with diverse functions, including residential towers, an EWS block, a clubhouse, a community centre, a school, and a four-level podium parking, each block will have its own distinct architectural vocabulary, form, proportions, and characteristics. To ensure a comprehensive review, the Commission requires that each building be presented with a detailed design scheme, including plans, elevations, sections, and annotated 3D views from all sides (including nighttime views). This will allow for a comprehensive and informed evaluation of the proposal.

g) The provided elevations and sections are very basic and sketchy, lacking necessary details such as architectural elements and façade materials. The elevations and sections must be detailed, clearly highlighting architectural features, sun shading mechanisms, and other relevant components. Additionally, comprehensive skin sections should be submitted to offer a detailed understanding of the façade's design, including the materials used. These detailed elements will provide a clearer and more complete overview of the architectural design and façade.

h) Apart from private vehicles, the complex will attract users from IPT (intermediate para transit). Also, Pick-up/ drop-off for IPT is to be planned at this stage to avoid discrepancies at later stages. Movement of various users via modes including auto/taxi/e-rickshaw etc. shall also be looked into.

i) Considering each building has varying uses, the pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the site be elucidated appropriately.  A combined mobility circulation plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plans from outside to the various buildings is to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site better. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement.

j) All residential blocks, including the EWS block, must include provisions for appropriately screening balconies, as well as screening for drying clothes. Innovative architectural features and materials should be used to conceal dish antennas on the balconies.

k) A four-meter-wide pedestrian bridge has been proposed to connect the main residential block to the outside, providing access to the nearest metro station. However, this has not been sufficiently detailed, including key aspects such as its connection to the main road outside, design, material specifications, starting and termination points, and detailed design of the overall structure.

l) The design has been developed without taking structural aspects into account, which may impact the layout of the internal spaces. It is recommended that the structural arrangement of the building blocks be included in the respective floor plans to provide a clearer understanding of how the proposed design will function.

m) Air-conditioners can detract from the building's façade. To prevent this, provisions must be incorporated into the design at this stage to accommodate the outdoor units for all proposed blocks (including school) without compromising the aesthetics. A comprehensive scheme should be submitted, detailing the placement, screening, and materials used for the screening, illustrated through plans, elevations, and 3D views for each block.

n) 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.

o) Several large trees, including mature ones, have been prominently shown on the balconies and in the cutout areas of the main residential block. However, the proposal lacks supporting details such as plans, sections, soil depth, and the proposed species, which is required to assess the feasibility and practicality of this design. These details should be provided to fully understand the overall concept and ensure its viability.

p) The submitted landscape plans lack clarity in conveying the overall landscape scheme. The site’s landscaping should be enhanced with appropriate hardscape and softscape treatments. These elements should be clearly detailed in the respective drawings, including information on planted and existing trees, levels, and species types, all presented at an appropriate scale. This should also align with point number six of the CPAA (Criteria for Project Assessment and Approval) as outlined on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

q) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, shall ensure to be installed in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

r) The Sustainability features shall be as pe point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

s) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. Overall, the design scheme submitted at the conceptual stage remains highly sketchy, lacking clarity, detail, and comprehensiveness, even in its third attempt. The architect is advised to address all the observations mentioned above, as well as those previously communicated in conceptually unsuitable letters OL-05122327026 dated 18.12.2023 and OL-23082427058 dated 04.09.2024 and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply. Additionally, the COA (Council of Architecture) details of the designated architect, as outlined in the authorization letter, must be submitted for the Commission's records and reference.

Building plans proposal of redevelopment of Campus for National School of Drama at Bahawalpur House, Bhagwan Das Road.  (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. Previously, the Commission did not approve (formal) the proposal during its meetings on July 24, 2020, and October 22, 2020, providing specific observations. The concept was later accepted at its meetings on July 08, 2021, and September 23, 2021, with specific observations. The current submission, now at the conceptual stage, presents an entirely revised new design proposal.
3. The ‘Bhawalpur House and Campus' is a listed Grade-II heritage building at Serial No. 28 in the Gazette notification no. F. No. 4/2/2009/UD/I 6565 dated October 1, 2009 issued by the Department of Urban Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
4. The building plans proposal plans proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on CISCO Webex meetings who made a detailed presentation and provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held online, presentation made, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The conceptual design for the Redevelopment of the Campus for the National School of Drama was previously accepted by the Commission during its meetings on July 08, 2021, and September 23, 2021. The proposal has now been resubmitted with a revised design scheme at the conceptual stage for the Commission’s consideration. Given that the complex includes Grade II listed heritage properties and is situated at a culturally significant and prominent roundabout, it is opined that the new building be designed as an extension of the existing heritage structure, with sensitivity to the site’s location, surroundings, and primary function.

A. Site Planning and Circulation:

i) As the proposal seeks metro reduction in order to reduce the parking requirements, it is imperative to explain the integration of the site with the metro station (location, distance from the site etc.) while clearly marking the pedestrian route from metro station to various parts of the site including the auditorium, as huge footfall is anticipated to the complex through public transport modes including metro especially during public events.

ii) As the site has blocks with different activities throughout the day, there needs to be uninterrupted and seamless pedestrian movement for the users. To ensure the same, a detailed pedestrian circulation plan showing the access and connections within different blocks, to be submitted.

B. Design Related:

i) The details of coverings for cut-out (if any) to be provided in the submission.

ii) Elevations of all four sides to be shown along with the materiality and the elements introduced as work of art, motifs etc.

iii) Drop-off areas for individual blocks, for different users ie. VIP, staff and public to be marked clearly on respective drawings.

iv) Details of softscape at podium level to be provided in the submission along with the materiality.

v) Dead spaces created from sharp angles to be avoided as they would be difficult to maintain.

C. Elevation and Façade Details:

i) The Commission observed that the elevation looks cluttered due to inclusion of multiple motifs and architectural elements. The building being an institutional building located at a landmark location and having heritage buildings within the site, needs to be sensitive to the surroundings and thus it is suggested to subdue the character of the proposed built form by reducing the use of multiple elements. Also, the materiality to be suitably chosen so that it is cost effective and low-maintenance due to the public nature of the complex.

ii) The use of big religious figures as work of art shall be avoided on façades which face major public roads. Instead, work of art depicting the essence of theatre may be installed at an appropriate level, visible from eye level outside the site boundary.

iii) The top portion of arch detail to be modified i.e. the recessed portion to be closed so as they do not get spoilt by bird droppings, dust and rainwater etc. Also, the arches can be lit from the back to highlight the architectural elements.  Metal frames used to hold screens for lighting from recesses.

iv) The horizontal grooves proposed in the brickwork shall be avoided as they would gather dust and difficult for maintenance at later stages.

v) Multiple motifs like stars, flowers etc. clutter the elevation as they are overpowering the architectural essence of the building. It is suggested that these elements be minimized, made subtle and reduced in size and shall be integrated into the building by using similar materiality.

vi) The traditional mudras in the top band do not look appropriate at such a height which is visible from a far distance, and it is suggested to place them at an eye level. Also, the material used shall blend with the building and not overpower it.

D. Miscellaneous:

i) Copy of notification of all heritage structures to be provided in the submission.

ii) North point in the sheets is missing.

iii) Location of the STP in the site to be shown in the site plan.

iv) Appropriate mechanisms for screening of utilities including DG and its exhaust, to be provided in the submission.

v) Details of air conditioning mechanisms to be explained along with the location of outdoor air conditioning units and their screening mechanisms.

vi) Services/utilities on the terrace are not shown. Details of the same to be reflected in respective floor plans and 3d views. The screening mechanism for the utilities also to be marked to explain their screening.

vii) Details of the solid waste management of kitchen waste, their disposal etc. to be provided in the submission.

viii) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

ix) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, shall ensure to be installed in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

x) The Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

xi) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

5. Overall, the design scheme submitted at the conceptual stage needs further enhancements. The architect is advised to address all the observations mentioned above issued by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.