Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1642nd meeting held on 17.03.2022.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1642nd meeting held on 17.03.2022 was discussed.

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 Commission was intended to discuss some of the issues related to the proposal with the architect (online), but he was not available. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal is located on a prominent road opposite the historic Jama Masjid which has a precise architectural character, form and material specifications. The architect has not specified in any of his report/drawings/3D views etc. about materials selected for the exterior façade.

b. The Commission observed that the elevation shall be such designed that some elements could be in harmony with the context of the surroundings (Old Delhi) with better architectural features, elements, form, materials etc. similar to the character of Old Delhi (like exposed bricks, sandstone etc.).

c. The arches given over the windows are not consistent i.e. they are changing in the front, side and left side views. Being close to the historic Jama Masjid architect may consider incorporating some of its architectural features, elements, materials etc. in his proposed design scheme.

d. An appropriate number of sections (through staircase as well) be given to understand the design scheme better.

e. Outdoor air conditioning units could be an eye-sore to the building façade. Appropriate provisions with screening mechanisms shall be ensured so as not to mar the aesthetics.

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

3. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

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

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

b. The building plan proposal is for the additions/alterations to the existing building. From the photographs submitted by the architect, it is observed that a lot of exposed outdoor air conditioners & plumbing pipes are spoiling the facade of the superstructure. It is suggested that an overall revamp scheme of the whole façade should be envisaged for better visual & aesthetics and to avoid mitigating the visual inconsistency between the old and new construction/additions.

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 July 19, 2005. The Commission did not approve the proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on January 20, 2022, specific observations were given. The concept of the additions/alterations was accepted in the meeting of the Commission held on February 17, 2022, and specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of two more floors (second & third floor) above, fire staircase from ground to the third floor, lift & a lobby from ground to the third floor, physically handicapped toilet on GF, staff (G) toilet on FF, canopy in the side set back on GF etc.) 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-03022227012 dated 22.02.2022. Based on the revised submission made and the replies submitted, the 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 plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, DG set and its exhaust pipes, 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.

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 the proposal is located at an important location in Delhi (in the vicinity of the civil lines area) which has a very distinct architectural character and is near to the Raj Bhawan (Hon’ble LG house) and also the ‘Delhi Ridge’. The Commission observed that the proposal cannot be studied in isolation i.e. it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, 3D views of the site shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings including road networks, structures around the site, for better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer. The Commission observed that fragmented 3d views have been submitted. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (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 scale, proportion, materials etc.

b. Provision of proposed parking not clearly understood. Parking (including fragmented triple-stack parking) is placed haphazardly, on the surface, all over the site apparently without sufficient thoughtfulness, the same is missing in the 3D views submitted for the consideration of the Commission. The 3d views are to be revised and the triple stack parking arrangements should also be reflected in the 3D views to understand their overall impact on the visual and aesthetic quality of the complex. Why is a consolidated basement parking not being considered?

c. The proposed layout, plans and elevations do not reflect the architectural elements shown in the 3d views. The layout, plans and elevations need to be revised where all the elements shall be marked to co-relate with the proposed 3d views. Additionally, Utilities are to be reflected in the 3D views as well as the drawings wherever provided.

d. The project is submitted at the Formal stage and should submit detailed drawings of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) and elevations. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials. An appropriate number of sections from end to end of the proposed scheme be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc.

e. The provision of air-conditioning units on the façade is not given in the proposal (drawings/3d views). The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, provisions should be made in the design to accommodate and screen the outdoor units appropriately, so as not to mar the aesthetics. The same shall be reflected in appropriate layouts and 3d views. The materials/finishes used for screening should be similar to the materials used in the elevation.

f. The Commission observed that the provisions made for the screening of drying of clothes, dish antenna etc. have not been shown in the submission, it shall be presented through a design scheme in a graphical format to understand it better. The same needs to be revised, co-related with other drawings and be resubmitted. Innovative architectural features and materials shall screen dish antennas in the balconies.

g. The greens in the site are fragmented and scattered. Being a residential complex with so many residential units consolidated greens should have been created for the users (including women, children and the elderly).  Also, the parking is carved out of the existing greens. It is suggested to provide consolidated greens on the site for efficient use and alternative arrangements should be explored to relocate the parking elsewhere.

h. Submitted landscape plans lack clarity in explaining the landscape scheme. The sites’ landscaping to be improved with appropriate treatment (Hardscape & Softscape). Landscape details are not appropriately resolved for the proposal. Needs to indicate the details of the trees planted, existing trees, levels, and types of species on an appropriate scale, (in terms of the point nos. 06 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) is available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

i. A signage policy should be adopted on the site to maintain uniformity. They need to be appropriately located to ensure that they do not mar the aesthetics of the façade.

j. The design of the gate and the boundary wall could have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex, thus details of the same should be provided including 3d Views, elevations, sections, gate/grill detail, material applications etc.

k. The work of Public art of suitable scale to the context to be installed in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in need to be made.

l. 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. 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. The screening for the same shall also be mentioned and marked clearly in the plans/3D views.

m. A lot of waste is supposed to be generated in the complex, a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location on the site plan be submitted.

n. All service equipment, outdoor air-conditioners 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.

3. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 17, 1989, and specific observations were given. But, no record of NOC for completion was found in the available record of the Commission.

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

a. From the photographs of the existing façade, it is evident that a lot of balconies have been covered with temporary materials and the outdoor air-conditioners are spoiling the overall aesthetics of the area. The covering of balconies with temporary materials needed to be removed.

b. In the proposed design scheme balcony of every top floor of every residential unit are open to the sky, thereby leaving the scope of temporary covering at a later stage which could spoil the aesthetics of the façade. To avoid the same alternative arrangements should be explored including the option of covering the same with the pergola, retractable covers in harmony with the overall façade.

c. The added structure shall be such designed that it withstands weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes etc. as it is an additional structure added to the existing superstructure. It shall be ensured it is braced firmly to the building and does not impact the safety of the superstructure.

d. The Commission observed that while considering the case for the extension of balconies it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for the extension of balconies only.

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 architect/proponent should ensure the façade of the completed building to be as shown in the proposed 3D views of the design scheme, in terms of aesthetics, material specifications etc., submitted for the consideration of the Commission.

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.

c. All plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) 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 proposal was deferred.

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

2. The proposal was deferred.

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

2. The building plan proposal for the development/redevelopment plans proposal in respect of the proposed Executive Enclave (Block A) at plot no.36, 1 Dalhousie Road received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the architect also made a detailed presentation of the project online through Cisco Web Ex meetings, explained its unique features, client requirements and constraints and provided clarifications to the queries of the Members of the Commission. The Commission appreciated the overall design. However, based on the presentation and discussion, the following observations were given:

a. The Commission observed that as the building is of National importance, housing multiple functions and uses, the quality of 3d views should be improved for an important building project of this scale. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (including night views with lighting arrangements etc.) for every block, clearly showing the proposed design scheme to be submitted. The 3d views should not be cut but give a complete vantage point view of the important spaces (Public and Private) including the entry foyer, colonnaded corridors, office spaces etc.

b. As the complex comprises multiple functions which would also be used at night hours, a detailed lighting strategy to be prepared and submitted to clearly explain the effects and impact of lighting on the design like accentuating certain architectural elements etc. Also, detailed landscaped drawings including lighting arrangement (up-lighters/downlighters) and details including Rainwater harvesting to be included in the submission.

c. It should be ensured via design and architecture that the user/visitor experience is welcoming and inviting. Careful selection and use of appropriate architectural elements/materials shall be done to ensure harmony and unity in the design.

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

e. Components of sustainability including air-conditioning mechanism, water pipes, solar panels provision and placement, plumbing mechanism etc. are not clearly elucidated in the submission, the same should be duly incorporated in the revised submission along with the arrangements envisaged for the screening mechanism.

f. The mechanism for air conditioning needs to be detailed i.e. location, areas of inflow/outflow in indoor areas and the appropriate treatments used to conceal/screen the air-conditioning system. Also, it shall be ensured that there is no leakage from the AC unit causing deterioration of spaces (indoor and outdoor).

g. The provision of Water tanks on the terrace is not reflected in the drawings/3d views, thus not giving a complete picture including overhead utilities in the complex, which could have a bearing on the urban aesthetics.

h. As the complex would be operational round-the-clock, various parts should be having their own mechanism to operate power/electricity so as to optimise and maintain energy efficiency.

i. A lot of waste would be generated in the complex from dining/eating areas therefore, a detailed solid waste management plan to depict effective means of waste disposal along with their location shall be submitted. It is suggested that the site should be designed in such a way that it attains zero discharge i.e. all waste treated within the site.

j. 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.

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

3. Considering the facts enumerated above, the architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

2. The building plan proposal for the development/redevelopment in respect of Proposed Executive Enclave (Block B) at plot no.38, 1 Kamraj Road received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the architect also made a detailed presentation of the project online through Cisco Web Ex meetings, explained its unique features, client requirements and constraints and provided clarifications to the queries of the Members of the Commission. The Commission appreciated the overall design. However, based on the presentation and discussion, the following observations were given:

a. The Commission observed that as the building is of National importance, housing multiple functions and uses, the quality of 3d views should be improved for an important building project of this scale. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (including night views with lighting arrangements etc.) for every block, clearly showing the proposed design scheme to be submitted. The 3d views should not be cut but give a complete vantage point view of the important spaces (Public and Private) including the entry foyer, colonnaded corridors, office spaces etc.

b. As the complex comprises multiple functions which would also be used at night hours, a detailed lighting strategy to be prepared and submitted to clearly explain the effects and impact of lighting on the design like accentuating certain architectural elements etc. Also, detailed landscaped drawings including lighting arrangement (up-lighters/downlighters) and details including Rainwater harvesting to be included in the submission.

c. It should be ensured via design and architecture that the user/visitor experience is welcoming and inviting. Careful selection and use of appropriate architectural elements/materials shall be done to ensure harmony and unity in the design.

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

e. Components of sustainability including air-conditioning mechanism, water pipes, solar panels provision and placement, plumbing mechanism etc. are not clearly elucidated in the submission, the same should be duly incorporated in the revised submission along with the arrangements envisaged for the screening mechanism.

f. The mechanism for Air conditioning needs to be detailed i.e. location, areas of inflow/outflow in indoor areas and the appropriate treatments used to conceal/screen the air-conditioning system. Also, it shall be ensured that there is no leakage from the AC unit causing deterioration of spaces (indoor and outdoor).

g. The provision of Water tanks on the terrace is not reflected in the drawings/3d views, thus not giving a complete picture including overhead utilities in the complex, which could have a bearing on the urban aesthetics.

h. As the complex would be operational round-the-clock, various parts should be having their own mechanism to operate power/electricity so as to optimise and maintain energy efficiency.

i. A lot of waste would be generated in the complex from dining/eating areas therefore, a detailed solid waste management plan to depict effective means of waste disposal along with their location shall be submitted. It is suggested that the site should be designed in such a way that it attains zero discharge i.e. all waste treated within the site.

j. 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.

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

3. Considering the facts enumerated above, the architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

2. The proposal was deferred.

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the architect (online) at the conceptual stage for consideration by the Commission.

2. The proposal was deferred.