MINUTES OF THE 1602nd MEETING OF THE DELHI URBAN ART COMMISSION (DUAC) HELD ON FRIDAY, JULY 23, 2021

A.   The minutes of the 1601st meeting of the Delhi Urban Art Commission held on 16.07.2021 were confirmed and approved.

SL. No.PROPOSALOBSERVATIONS /SUGGESTIONSDECISIONREMARKS

B.Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1600th meeting held on 08.07.2021.1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1600th meeting held on 08.07.2021 was discussed.Noted by the Commission.

C. PROJECT PROPOSALS:

1Building plans proposal in respect of ITBP Police Campus (Phase-I) at Chhawla.

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 March 23, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The Commission did not consider the proposal at the request of the architect vide his email dated 25.06.2021 at its meeting held on June 25, 2021.

4. The revised building plans proposal for phase-I 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 the phasing of the proposal, surface parking arrangements made on the site, feasibility of the provisions made for double basement with double stack parking, screening of the outdoor air conditioning units & rainwater/plumbing pipes etc. in the balcony of the individual residential units, provisions for drying of clothes/dish antenna in the balconies etc. The Commission observed that in terms of the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-18032155012 dated 26.03.2021 indicated at serial no. 3 (a, c) inadequate compliances for these have been provided.  However, based on the detailed discussion held and submitted revised scheme the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) It is again reiterated that considering the scale of the project architect is advised to submit the proposal in two phases:

            i) The Master Plan of the entire scheme highlighting the zoning, road network, parking and landscaping.

               ii) Approvals of the individual blocks detailing the floor plans, elevations, sections etc. along with other sustainability features.


b) The Commission observed that the project is submitted at the Formal stage, but the details are not comprehensible. The turning radius provided for the cul-de-sac shall be relooked at to increase green spaces in between.

c) 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.

d) The scattered parking provisions made on the surface throughout the site wastes a lot of surface space. It was not appreciated by the Commission. Also, the double basement provisions are not implemented in phase-I, it was, accordingly, suggested to explore the alternative option for creating basements under men’s barracks or individual residential blocks and the freed-up space to be put to judicious uses.

e) Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

f) A detailed furniture layout for the typical units shall be provided to understand its functioning better.

g) 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. Appropriate arrangements/spaces shall be created to house air-conditioners, etc. so as not to mar the aesthetics, and it shall be ensured that the pipes are appropriately screened so that they are not exposed on the outer façade.

h) The balconies need to be screened appropriately along with the provision of screening of drying clothes. Innovative architectural features and materials shall screen dish antennas in the balconies.

i) Provisions made for the work of art on the façade is not appreciated by the Commission. 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.

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 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.

5. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish a 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.

2Completion plans proposal in respect of Mother International School at Sri Aurobindo Marg. 

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

2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on August 6, 2002.

3. The building plan proposal of NOC for completion received (online) was scrutinised and the following observations are given: 

a) It was observed that the building proposal has many blocks, but the complete submission for NOC has been received only for the auditorium block. It was, accordingly, decided to give NOC for completion to auditorium block only. 

NOC for part completion given to auditorium block only. The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

3Building plan proposal in respect of Commercial/ residential building on plot no-96, Block R, MPL no-4909, Daryaganj, Ward no-XI.

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 June 25, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the revised submission in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-24062155026 dated 29.06.2021. Based on the revised submission 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 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. 

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

4Building plans proposal in respect of New Annexe to Arunachal Bhawan at site no. 1, FC 3 & 4, Dheerpur Phase-I.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 16, 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-26022122006 dated 22.03.2021. Based on the revised submission 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 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. 

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

5Proposal for Pedestrian street and sunken Plaza at Hospitality District, Aerocity, IGI Airport, Delhi

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

2. The Commission approved the master plan of the hospitality district at IGI airport at its meeting held on March 09, 2011, and the revised conceptual master plan was accepted in the meeting of the Commission held on October 18, 2017, specific observations were given.

3. The proposal for Pedestrian Street and sunken Plaza at Hospitality District 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 previous conceptualapproval given by the Commission, current status of the site, site photographs, screening of services etc.  It was informed by the architect that the work on site has already been completed, however, shops and other structures are yet to be operationalised. Based on the detailed discussion held and the scheme 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 service equipment including air conditioning units, plumbing/sanitary pipes 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. 

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 Additions/alterations in Senior Secondary School for Sanatan Dharm Adarsh Siksha Sansthan at Mayur Vihar Phase-I.  (conceptual stage)

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 04, 1995, and the NOC for completion plan was approved at its meeting held on February 09, 2019. The concept of the building plan proposal for addition/alterations was not accepted in the meeting held on January 01, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised conceptual building plan proposal for additions/alterations received (online) was scrutinised along with replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-17122027090 dated 08.01.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed that the architect has provided three options for the parking arrangements, considering visual, urban aesthetics, the Commission did not find any one of them to be workable and found non-satisfactory. It was accordingly suggested to explore other attainable options for accommodating all parking requirements (current and proposed) of the school building and resubmitted.

b) The Commission again reiterated that not fulfilling/addressing the parking requirements for the proposal, owing to the additional FAR, would severely impact the overall aesthetic, environmental, and visual quality of the complex.

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

Concept of the proposal not accepted, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

7Building plans proposal in respect of Additions/alterations in Management Institute for Rohini Educational Society at PSA area 2A & 2B, Madhuban Chowk, Rohini. (conceptual stage)

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 31, 2002, and the proposal for additions/alterations was approved in the meeting held on July 07, 2011.

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

a) It was observed that the proposal submitted (for additions/alterations) has been found to have deviated from the earlier sanction (for additions/alteration) given by the DUAC, needs clarification. Approval from the concerned local body, if any, shall be submitted.

b) Provision of proposed parking needs to be clearly indicated in an appropriate plans and other parking details etc. Existing parking and the parking from additional FAR (proposed) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with the bifurcation of two.

c) The air-conditioning units in the existing portion of the building are clearly visible thereby spoiling the external façade. To avoid the same, the provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units, so as not to mar the aesthetics. No external pipe shall be visible on the façade, need to be screened appropriately.

d) It was observed that the proposal is for the additions/alterations and the later additions to the existing structure would distract and mar the aesthetics of the campus. It is suggested to ensure uniformity in elevation, and resubmit the proposal along with face lifting of the entire structure.

e) 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.

f) 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.

g) 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.

Concept of the proposal 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 Friday, July 23, 2021, from 02.30 PM onwards:

1. Shri Ajit Pai, Chairman, DUAC

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

3. Shri Ashutosh Agarwal, Member, DUAC

4. Smt. Nivedita Pande, Member, DUAC