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

2. The Commission accepted the concept of the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on May 27, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations 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 air-conditioning provisions, DG set, exhaust pipes, their locations, screening of all the services etc. along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-11052127035 dated 01.06.2021. Based on the detailed discussion held, revised scheme and response received, 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 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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The building plan proposal 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 air-conditioning provisions including VRV, DG set, screening of DG exhaust pipes, ESS, screening of all the services, overall pedestrian & vehicular circulation across the site, entry/exit to the ramps, ramp designing, location of signage etc. Based on the detailed discussion held and the submission received, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The area accommodating ESS, DG set, AC plant etc. shall be suitably screened, including DG exhaust pipes, using appropriate architectural mechanisms so as not to remain visible, and mar the aesthetics of the complex.

b) The main signage provided in the area of the pick-up & drop-off shall be suitably moved further back so that the area be available for the pedestrian entry/exit.

c) 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.

d) All service equipment 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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 16, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect (on speakerphone) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission on various aspects related to not considering providing parking provisions in the basement, the air-conditioning provisions including VRV, DG set, screening of DG exhaust pipes, screening of all the services, overall pedestrian & vehicular circulation across the site etc. along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-12072155029 dated 20.07.2021. Based on the discussion held, revised submission and the replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The Commission was asserting on providing parking provisions in the basement and use the available surface for judicious use. But, in his response during the discussion the architect has indicated the following:

“…….the current submission has been visualised by utilising minimum ground coverage (GC) 16 of the permissible 40 & FAR 18  of the permissible 175 only. The future proposal for enhanced ground coverage & FAR shall be envisaged after demolishing the whole structure by utilising most of the GC & FAR, and ensuring accommodating parking requirements in the basements…….”

While the Commission generally insists on locating the vast majority of parking requirements in basements on larger sites, on considering the contention that the current proposal was intermediate in nature and only a small fraction of permissible built up area was being proposed that would be fully demolished prior to building a comprehensive project that maximized FAR, the Commission provided an exception with the caveat that no additional construction to currently proposed would be permitted without 100% of existing parking being fully accommodated in a proposed basement along with the additional parking requirement for additional construction.

b) The area accommodating DG set, AC plant etc. shall be suitably screened, including DG exhaust pipes, using appropriate architectural mechanisms so as not to remain visible, and mar the aesthetics of the complex.

c) 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.

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

2. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations 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 the air-conditioning provisions including VRV, DG set, screening of DG exhaust pipes, screening of all the services and its impact on the visual & aesthetics etc. Based on the detailed discussion held and the submission received, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) All service equipment at the terrace including solar panels, outdoor AC units, VRV system etc. shall be suitably screened, including DG exhaust pipes, so as not to remain visible & 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.

b) 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.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the PWD (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) It has been observed that the requisite parking provisions have been made on the surface only. While the Commission generally insists on accommodating the vast majority of parking required for projects in basements for larger sites, as the timeliness of the availability of hospital capacity is of paramount public interest to address a potential third wave of the Covid pandemic, and the hospital facility is proposed as semi-permanent/temporary in nature, the Commission provided an exception to basement provisions for parking to accelerate time to commissioning.

b) The surface parking proposed at the periphery of the complex is suggested to be removed (including double-stack stilt parking) and explore the possibility of creating a Multi-level car parking (MLCP) instead, at an appropriate location which will accommodate all the parking requirements of the proposal. The carved out space from the removed parking to put to use for some judicious use including green, open spaces. All parking provisions shall be as per applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

c) 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.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the PWD (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:

3. It has been observed that the requisite parking provisions have been made on the surface only. While the Commission generally insists on accommodating the vast majority of parking required for projects in basements for larger sites, as the timeliness of the availability of hospital capacity is of paramount public interest to address a potential third wave of the Covid pandemic, and the hospital facility is proposed as semi-permanent/temporary in nature, the Commission provided an exception to basement provisions for parking to accelerate time to commissioning.

4. The proposed visitor parking (adjacent to Block A) is suggested to be removed and converted into a consolidated green chunk which can be used as an open green space and the other Visitor parking (along Raghubir Nagar road), is suggested to be converted into Multi-level car parking (MLCP) instead,  accommodating the entire parking requirement in the site. The carved out space from the removed parking to put to use for some judicious use including green, open spaces. All parking provisions shall be as per applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

5. 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.

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

2. The layout and building plans in respect of district centre Saket (2nd stage approval of architectural controls) were approved by the Commission at its meeting held on December 30, 1996. The layout and building plan proposal in respect of Shopping-cum-multiplex at plot no. A3 & P1B was approved by the Commission at its meeting held on January 20, 2005. The revised plans in respect of Shopping-cum-multiplex at plot no. A3 & P1B were accepted by the Commission at its meeting held on May 08, 2006. The Commission approved the proposal for additions/alterations (for approval of enhancement of FAR) including modifications in Basement-01 (two anchor stores added), modification in Basement-03(Chiller plant Room provided), modifications in Ground floor (area over ramp added to accommodate toilets, escalators added at the entrance connecting Ground floor & a basement, addition of a lift at the entrance to provide access to third floor, addition of two sets of external staircases), modifications in first floor (terraces converted to commercial, addition of two sets of external staircases), modifications in Second floor (terrace converted to commercial, addition of a bridge,  bridge at Grid 1-3 converted to commercial, bridge at Grid J-K converted to commercial, bridge at Grid 11-12‘ converted to male & female toilets), modifications in third floor (commercial proposed, shifting of skylight from second to third floor) at its meeting held on October 16, 2019 specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal for addition/alterations (addition of two floors (eight & ninth floor above), including two main staircases & three lifts) in Service apartment tower (Svelte Hotel) at Plot no. A3 received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the current proposal is part of a large complex. Only one photograph of the building has been provided and without an appropriate number of 3D views.

b) The scheme has been submitted without 3D views thus making it difficult to comprehend the proposal and 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.

c) Since the proposal is part of a large complex, the Commission opines that the proposal cannot be studied in isolation i.e. it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, including road networks, structures around the site, for a better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.

d) Only one photograph of the building has been provided which do not portray the scheme appropriately, thus difficult to appreciate and visualize the proposal in the current context. An appropriate nos. of site photographs shall be provided to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides.

e) Utilities including information related to air-conditioning units, DG set its exhaust pipes, ESS etc. to be reflected in the 3D views as well as the drawings wherever provided.

f) Only one-part elevation & section (basic) has been provided which is not appreciated by the Commission. The project is 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.

g) The proposal is for additions/alterations, the details of the existing number of car parks + additional parking provided are not given in the submission, thereby not providing clear information as to how the additional parking will be addressed. The existing parking and the parking from additional FAR (proposed) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with the bifurcation of two.

h) The proposal has been submitted for the addition of two more floors (8th & 9th floor) above the existing superstructure. A lot of live/dead load is being added to the existing building. The structure shall be such designed that it can withstand weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes etc. and can withstand the additional load.

i) 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. 

j) All equipment including cooling towers, solar panels, DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc. shall be suitably screened so as not to remain visible & 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.

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

5. 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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal in respect of Block A (G+2), Block B (G+2), and Block C (junior school block part second floor) at its meeting held on February 03, 2010, and the convent of Jesus & Merry school (Block D- B+G+2) was approved in the meeting held on April 28, 2010.

3. The building plan proposal of NOC for completion plan proposal (part) for Block-A, Block-C and Block-D received (online) at completion 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 labelling/delineation of the actual constructed building blocks, exposed wires/cables (electrical) on the facade, rainwater pipes, temporary structure on top of one of the building blocks, etc. Based on the detailed discussion held and the submission received, 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 (with proper labelling/delineation of every block), to substantiate the actual work executed at site, has not been provided. Cropped photographs of the completion plan proposal have been submitted which do not indicate the required details. The proposal being at the Completion stage needs to provide uncut/clear photographs of every block (with proper labelling/delineation of every block) for which completion has been applied to substantiate an actual work executed at site.

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, if any, viz-a-viz sanctioned plan.

c) The site photographs show exposed wires/cables (electrical), rainwater pipes on the facade marring the visual and aesthetics of the area. 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 (part) shall be submitted with proper labelling/delineation of every block for which completion has been applied, to substantiate an actual work executed at site, and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 05, 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-30072161015 dated 10.08.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The Commission again reiterated its earlier observation that options to relocate surface parking in the basement shall be explored 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.

4. 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 the DUAC website 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 by the PWD (GNCTD) (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 29, 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-27072161013 dated 03.08.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The Commission again reiterated its earlier observation that options to relocate surface parking in the basement shall be explored 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.

4. 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 the DUAC website 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 was not accepted in the meeting of the Commission held on July 29, 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-03072127056 dated 03.08.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted 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.

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

2. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a new block of ground floor comprising of 10 nos. guest rooms, kitchen, dining, sitting/waiting area and office) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal has been submitted for additions/alterations (addition of a new block) at the conceptual stage. But the architect has indicated in his report that:

“…..the existing building is completely demolished for the purpose of existing development……..”

It is evident that there is a mismatch between the scheme and the report submitted for consideration by the Commission, hence needs clarification. Also, previous approval plans etc. from the concerned agency for the existing structure need to be provided.

b) The submitted 3D views are improper and unacceptable. They are very sketchy and shall be enhanced with better visuals. The scale, proportion, materials etc. are not understood clearly. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (at least 6 in numbers) from all sides including a terrace, clearly specifying the materials to be used on the façade, showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations and corresponding to proposal drawings be submitted for a better understanding of the proposal. Utilities including DG set, ESS, pump room etc. (with screening mechanisms) to be reflected in the 3D views as well as the drawings wherever provided.

c) The quality of elevations and sections provided is not appreciated, need to be detailed 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.

d) The photographs indicate the presence of an existing (G+1) structure on the site and the proposal has been submitted for additions/alterations. No clarity has been given by the architect on how the parking requirements (existing & proposed) has been addressed.  Details of the existing number of car parks + additional parking provided are not given in the submission, thereby not providing clear information as to how the existing + additional parking would be addressed. The existing parking and the proposed parking are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with the bifurcation of two.

e) Provision for short/long term parking to be addressed in the proposed design scheme and shall also incorporate parking provisions for IPT (ola/Taxi/auto) with appropriate movement pattern.

f) The air conditioning mechanisms of the complex shall be detailed and highlighted in the scheme along with its screening as these 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 AC units, if any, at this stage so as not to mar the aesthetics later. A scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views. 

g) The internal functional arrangement shall be given in the submission to understand its functioning better.

h) The boundary wall and entrance gate would have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the area and need to be designed appropriately and shown with relevant details (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.).

i) 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.

j) 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.

k) The elements of sustainability are missing in the design scheme. These shall be identified and be shown in the 3D views etc. including its screening mechanism. 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.

l) The location of the ESS, STP, UGT, pump room, DG set (including exhaust pipes) etc. shall be indicated in the layout plans with screening mechanism & 3D views etc. as appropriate to be submitted. The Commission observed that these components have a bearing on the overall visual, urban and aesthetic quality of the complex, accordingly, the submission shall be revised and resubmitted. 

m) Submitted landscape plans lack clarity in explaining the landscape scheme. The landscaping in the site to be improved with appropriate treatment (Hardscape & Softscape), shall also indicate the details of the trees planted, existing trees, levels, types of species on an appropriate scale, (in terms of the point nos. Six of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. 

n) All service equipment including ESS, STP, UGT, pump room, DG set (including exhaust pipes) etc. ensured to be screened 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 furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.