SL. No. | PROPOSAL | | OBSERVATIONS /SUGGESTIONS | | DECISION | | REMARKS |
---|
|
B. | Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1601st meeting held on 16.07.2021. | | Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1601st meeting held on 16.07.2021 was discussed. | | Noted by the Commission. | | |
|
C. PROJECT PROPOSALS: |
1 | Completion plans proposal in respect of
Redevelopment of Staff quarters for Reserve Bank of India at Hauz Khas. | | 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. | | NOC
for completion not approved, observations given. | | The Commission decided to take action in the matter
without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting. |
|
2 | Completion plans proposal in respect of Guest
House for U.P. Government at Plot no. 3, Sector-13, Dwarka. | | 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.
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. | | NOC
for completion not approved, observations given. | | The Commission decided to take action in the matter
without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting. |
|
3 | Completion plans proposal (for
additions/alterations) in respect of Commercial Complex for V3S Infratech
Ltd. At Plot no. 12, Laxmi Nagar District Center, Vikas Marg. | | 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.
4. The architect is advised to
adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish a
pointwise incorporation/reply. | | NOC
for completion (part) not approved, observations given. | | The Commission decided to take action in the matter
without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting. |
|
4 | Revised Proposal for Development/redevelopment of
Central Vista Avenue, Landscape restoration of Rajpath and its adjoining Lawns
from Vijay Chowk to India Gate. | | 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
b) The proposal also mentions potential boating
sites in one of the layout plans. Although, the supporting details for the
boating sites have not been shown in the entire proposal and thus could come up
at a later stage which may have a bearing on the overall visual, aesthetics of
the urban environment. Thus, to avoid the same it is suggested to plan its
requirements including associated supporting services including ticketing booth
formally at this stage (preferably near the pedestrian underpass/concessions
adjoining Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Marg) so as to provide a comprehensive urban design
solution, and avoid adding later additions which could spoil the overall visual
and urban aesthetics of the area. | | Approved,
observations given. | | The Commission decided to take action in the matter
without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting. |
|
5 | Revised Building plans proposal in respect of GPOA
– 2 (General Pool Office Accommodation) Building at K.G. Marg. | | 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. | | Not
approved, observations given. | | The Commission decided to take action in the matter
without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting. |
|
6 | Building plans proposal in respect of Government
Senior Secondary school at Daryapur Kalan. | | 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. | | Not
approved, observations given. | | The Commission decided to take action in the matter
without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting. |
|
7 | Building plans proposal in respect of Senior Secondary
School at E-Block, Main Market, Malviya Nagar for Gujranwala Gurukul Trust
Society.(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 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. | | 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. |
|
D. ADDITIONAL DETAILS: |
1 | Layout and building plan proposal for a group housing project on plot no-67, Najafgarh Road, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. | | 1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission. 2. The Commission did not approve the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 15, 2021 specific observations were given. 3. The revised layout and the building plan proposal received (online) at 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-12042123011 dated 19.04.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted following observations are to be complied with: a) The Commission observed that in terms of the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-12042123011 dated 19.04.2021 indicated at serial no. 2A (b, c, d, and g), 2B (a, b, c, d, e, f, and g, h), and 2C (a, b, c, d, and e) inadequate compliance for this has been given. Due to lack of clarity of information, the proposal is not understood clearly, and may be resubmitted. b) Inconsistency observed in the submission and the reply submitted by the architect. The architect has submitted that: “…… We are now applying for the “Concept Approval” first and we assure you to incorporate all observations (if any) at the time of the ‘formal submission’”…… Though, the architect has submitted the proposal at formal level routed through the concerned local body i.e. North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission. Also, the architect has provided incomplete submission, without the necessary drawings of elevations & sections, which is not appreciated by the Commission. The proposal being at formal level shall submit all the requisite drawings, information, details etc. for the consideration of the Commission. c) Also, in one of the replies the architect has indicated that a 15.00 M height building structure exists on site, but necessary information to substantiate the same, including detailed survey plans, photographs, demolition plans etc., have not been provided. Clear site pictures need to be supplemented for better understanding of the proposal shall be submitted. Also, all informations related to the earlier approval, if any, by the concerned authorities for the structures to be demolished shall be provided. 4. In view of the above, the architect was suggested to incorporate all above observations and the observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-12042123011 dated 19.04.2021 and ensure its compliances in the next submission for the consideration of 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. |