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 May 11, 2016 and the layout of the proposal was approved in the meeting held on June 01, 2016.

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

a) The proposal has been submitted at the completion stage but an appropriate number of photographs (including interior areas) of the actual built construction associated with every block, to substantiate an actual work executed at site, has not been provided. Cropped photographs of the completion plan proposal have been submitted which do not clearly indicate the required details. The proposal being at Completion stage needs to provide uncut/clear photographs of every block for which completion has been applied to substantiate an actual work executed at site including boundary wall, gate, parking, landscape, elevational façade, screening of services etc. 

b) Approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall be superimposed on the plans/elevations/sections etc., over actual built structure on the site, existing & proposed changes done in the design from the approval (by DUAC), to understand the extents of deviations made internally as well as external changes made with respect to the sanctioned plan, if any.

c) The proposal being at Completion stage needs to provide an actual Artwork executed at site. The same is missing. Work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at appropriate level (human eye) which is also visible from outside, to be installed.

d) It was suggested to submit the completion plan proposal for NOC only when all works including signage, screening of services etc. is complete at site as per formal approval.

e) In absence of the sufficient information provided by the architect/proponent the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission.

4. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and the proposal for completion plan approval shall be submitted once all the works including civil, landscape etc. is complete at site and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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 June 01, 2016.

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

a) The proposal has been submitted at the completion stage but an appropriate number of photographs (including interior areas) of the actual built construction associated with every block, to substantiate an actual work executed at site, has not been provided.

b) The proposal being at Completion stage needs to provide an appropriate nos. of uncut/clear photographs, of every block for which completion has been applied to substantiate an actual work executed at site including boundary wall, gate, parking, landscape, elevational façade, screening of services like DG set, ESS etc. and to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings.

c) The site photographs show huge pipes of the DG set which are exposed and thus mar the aesthetics. Appropriate provisions shall be explored for their screening so as not to spoil the aesthetics of the facade.

d) In absence of the sufficient information provided by the architect/proponent the proposal could not be examined properly by the Commission.

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 July 04, 2005 specific observations were given and the NOC for completion plan approval was given at its meeting held on November 22, 2007.  The proposal for additions/alterations was approved in the meeting of the Commission held on January 04, 2019.

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

a) The Commission observed that due thought had been given by the Commission while approving the scheme in terms of visual & urban aesthetics of the area, materials, finishes, architectural elements, façade, location of advertisement panels, hoardings etc. The approved 3d views depict a neat façade with the signages placed at appropriate places, and not placed haphazardly, thus giving a very idealistic picture.

b) While comparing the approved 3D views with the submitted pictures of the actual completed work on the façade, it is clearly evident that the large hoardings/signages have been placed randomly marring the aesthetics of the façade. The architectural elements including the glazing design etc. are hidden behind the large hoardings thus giving a very chaotic look to the elevation, which is not appreciated by the Commission. It was, accordingly, suggested to remove all hoardings placed without formal approval and resubmitted.

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

2.    The Commission approved the proposal for Development/redevelopment of Central Vista Avenue, Landscape restoration of Rajpath and its adjoining Lawns from Vijay Chowk to India Gate at its meeting held on February 02, 2021 specific observations were given.

3.    Considering the updated functional requirements, security considerations and requirements during national events the revised proposal for Development/redevelopment of Central Vista Avenue, Landscape restoration of Rajpath and its adjoining Lawns from Vijay Chowk to India Gate received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:  

a) Though, the Commission reiterated its earlier decision to keep the number of bridges over the canal to the minimum, but considering the updated security/functional requirements, and requirements for putting up of additional bridges during national events, the Commission decided to prioritise the placement of the additional bridges in the following order:

i.  Priority I- Right next to the podium/Presidential Dias as the area could witness maximum footfall during national events, and for expeditious evacuation of the VVIP’s.

ii.  Priority II - East side of Janpath road

iii.  Priority III - West side of Janpath road

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for Gramin Vikas Bhawan at its meeting held on January 18, 2019 specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal (renamed as General Pool Office Accommodation-2) received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal is at Formal level, but the quality of submitted drawings is poor (scanned copies from a report), and found to be not comprehensible and unacceptable. The 3d views are unclear and do not provide a correct picture of the materials on the facade. The pictures are blurred and not easy to comprehend. The current submission lacks legibility & clarity thus is not appreciated by the Commission.

b) An appropriate number of annotated uncut rendered 3d views need to be submitted for the submission. The drawings/3D views etc. shall be resubmitted in an appropriate medium (ACAD/PDF) with adequate line thickness and color code as prescribed by the local body/byelaws, for clarity and better understanding of the proposal.

c) The globe shaped profile (at the entrance) could result in detailing issues that are not fully resolved between the sphere and the rectilinear building, particularly for water management and meeting of surfaces.  The resolution of surfaces and construction between sphere and rectilinear building may be shown in explicitly in details and also in 3D.  An alternate design strategy can also be explored for the same area.

d) The submitted elevations are of poor quality and is 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 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).

e) The project being submitted at the Formal stage 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.

f) The exhaust pipes protruding out from the DG sets and MS steel structure to carry them are shown in the drawings and not reflected in any 3d views, thus not imparting a clear picture. The exposed exhaust pipes would have a bearing on the visual, urban aesthetics needs to be reflected appropriately in the 3d views so as to get a clearer understanding of the arrangements and design.

g) The use of the proposed building being office, appropriate provisions for an efficient and seamless pedestrian network and circulation shall be ensured and shown appropriately in the drawings.

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

i) A functional furniture arrangement of the typical floor shall be provided to understanding its functioning better.

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) Service equipments, DG sets, water tanks 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 DUAC website at www.duac.org.in by appropriate architectural mechanisms.

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 PWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The building plan proposal received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised and the 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 so as 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, “it is because of security concern for the students”. 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.

3. The architect is advised to adhere to all the observations of the Commission taken at its meeting held on July 01, 2021 and communicated to the PWD vide DUAC letter no: 35(1)/2021-DUAC dated 13.07.2021, also available on DUAC web site at www.duac.org.in. It would support the Commission to ensure its approval with nominal observations, and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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 07, 2018. But, the revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations was not approved in the meeting of the Commission held on June 03, 2021 specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal 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-01062155021 dated 09.06.2021. It was observed that the inadequate replies for theses have been submitted. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted following observations are to be complied with:

a) The architect has submitted the three options of the 3D views, the option-3 was found to be more appropriate.

b) The 3D views have been submitted without annotations thus making it difficult to comprehend the materials etc. on the façade. 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 better understanding of the proposal.

c) It is understood that most of the classrooms may not be air-conditioned, but we can preplan 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.

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

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

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

g) 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.

h) 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

i) 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) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in using the same architectural elements and materials.

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