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 August 31, 2016.

3. The building plan proposal for NOC of completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised and found acceptable.

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 in a prominent area, Under Hill Road, Civil lines area and should not be considered in isolation. Annotated 3D views of the proposed design scheme shall be superimposed on the existing superstructure along with the existing context of the surroundings, including road networks, structures around the site, for a better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer. Also, 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. Also, the quality of the 3d views shall be enhanced with better visuals.

b) The proposed layout and plans do not reflect the architectural elements shown in the 3d views. The layout and plans need to be revised where all the elements shall be marked to co-relate with the proposed 3d views.

c) The architect has not submitted an appropriate number of photographs to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings. It was not appreciated by the Commission. The proposal being at the formal stage needs to submit an appropriate nos. of site photographs to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides.

d) It was observed that the proposal has been submitted without indicating structural arrangements including the basement, which may cause limitations in organising the functional furniture arrangements and the parking (movement, location, circulation etc.) proposed in the basement. The submission shall be, accordingly, modified, correlated and resubmitted.

e) Two very basic elevations & sections have been provided. 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. 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.

f) 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 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.

g) 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.

h) The plumbing/rainwater/sanitary pipes on all facades shall be ensured to be screened using appropriate screening mechanisms so as not to mar the aesthetics.

i) The provision of proposed parking is not clearly understood and seems to be disfunctional. It needs to be clearly indicated in appropriate plans with other parking details including the location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. All parking provisions shall adhere to the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

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

k) The landscape details submitted are not sufficient to explain the scheme properly. It needs to be revised and submitted in the respective drawings and shall 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.

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. 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.

m) All service equipment including solar panels, DG set, pump room, 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) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

3. 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 North DMC (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-30072123028 dated 10.08.2021. 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 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 DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on December 5, 1997, specific observations were made. The proposal did not come before the Commission for NOC completion plan proposal. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on May 13, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal for addition/alterations (addition of balconies, bedrooms, toilets) received (online) 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 mandatory parking provisions made in the set-back areas creating hindrances to the pedestrians & vehicular circulation, screening of outdoor air-conditioning units, plumbing mechanism & its screening, screening for drying of clothes & dish antennas in the balconies etc., along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-10052122015 dated 19.05.2021. Based on the discussion held, revised submission and the replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The Commission observed that in terms of the earlier observation of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-10052122015 dated 19.05.2021 indicated at sr. no. 3 (b, h, k, I, m, n) it was observed that inadequate compliance for this has been given.

b) The Commission observed that the sketches, submitted in response to the earlier observations of the Commission, do not correlate with the revised submission submitted for the consideration of the Commission (including screening of outdoor air-conditioning units, plumbing, drying of clothes, dish antenna etc.). The same need to be revised, co-related and resubmitted.

c) It is again reiterated that provisions made for proposed parking are not clearly understood, and strongly suggests that not addressing parking requirements for the complex would spoil the overall visual, urban, environmental, and aesthetic quality. Existing parking and the parking from additional FAR (proposed) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with the bifurcation of two.

d) Further, it is observed that all set-back areas/roads meant for vehicular & pedestrian circulation have been considered towards achieving ECS calculations (for car parking) without much thought, which is not appreciated by the Commission. The alternative mechanism shall be explored to accommodate all the existing and proposed parking requirements of the proposal without compromising areas meant for pedestrian and vehicular circulation.  Instead, this area should be completely kept free for use by pedestrians, open spaces etc.

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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The building plan proposal for demolition of the existing structure and reconstruction received (online) was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The entire proposal shall adhere to all the applicable statutory provisions, and norms/regulations of the prevailing Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ) guidelines.

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 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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The building plan proposal for demolition of the existing structure and reconstruction received (online) was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The entire proposal shall adhere to all the applicable statutory provisions, and norms/regulations of the prevailing Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ) guidelines.

b) 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, the provision shall be made to accommodate the outdoor units, so as not to mar the aesthetics.

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 PWD (GNCTD) (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 for a 458 bedded hospital with 358 ECS mandatory parking requirements. It has been observed that a few scattered 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 timely construction of hospital complex 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 architect/proponent has submitted the proposal with a few scattered surface parking indicating the provision of Multi-level car parking (MLCP) as a future expansion (phase-II). The Commission is of the opinion that since the hospital would attract a huge footfall owing to its usages, size etc. not addressing parking requirements would spoil the visual, urban aesthetics and would lead to spill-over to the public spaces/roads around.

c) The Commission opines that all the mandatory parking requirements for the entire site shall be addressed at this stage only. It is, accordingly, strongly suggested to design, incorporate and construct the MLCP during phase-I itself simultaneously with the main building. While planning MLCP adequate provisions for essential facilities including waiting areas, toilets and drinking water facilities for the users shall be ensured.  If MLCP construction is already in full swing reflecting significant momentum when the rest of the hospital is complete, partial completion may be applied for.

d) The proposal has been designed with a building footprint covering 37% ground coverage (permissible 40%) and lacks any consolidated green spaces which could be utilised by the staff/attendants/visitors as recreational spaces. These spaces can be extracted by removing and relocating almost all the mandatory parking requirements (except emergency parking) to the MLCP.

e) STP provisions have been envisaged (near the pedestrian entry) as a future expansion, which is not appreciated by the Commission. This area can be utilised for creating open green spaces by relocating STP provisions elsewhere in the site.

f) The proposal shows two different uses for the 4th floor i.e. future expansion and storage spaces, which is conflicting and needs to be corrected.

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

3. The architect is thereby advised to revise the submission accordingly incorporated with the provisions of the MLCP in phase-I and making provisions for consolidated green/ open spaces after removing surface parking. This would enable the Commission to fast-track the approvals to the proposal (looking at its urgent need to the community), and adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission along with a pointwise incorporation/reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the PWD (GNCTD) (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 generally insists on accommodating the vast majority of parking required for projects in basements for larger sites, as the timely construction of hospital complex 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 area accommodating STP, other utilities etc. shall be suitably screened 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. using appropriate architectural mechanisms so as not to remain visible, and mar the aesthetics of the complex.

c) While planning MLCP adequate provisions for essential facilities including waiting areas, toilets and drinking water facilities for the users shall be ensured.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the PWD (GNCTD) (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 for a 1405 bedded hospital with 732 ECS mandatory parking requirements. A large chunk of the open area has been marked for surface parking, not fully accommodating requisite parking requirements for hospital buildings. While the Commission generally insists on accommodating the vast majority of parking required for projects in basements for larger sites, as the timely construction of hospital complex 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 proposal states provision of Multi-level car parking (MLCP) as a future expansion (phase-II). The Commission is of the opinion that since the hospital would attract a huge footfall owing to its usages, size etc. not addressing parking requirements would spoil the visual, urban aesthetics and would lead to spill-over to the public spaces/roads around.

c) The Commission opines that all the mandatory parking requirements for the entire site shall be addressed at this stage only. It is, accordingly, strongly suggested to design, incorporate and construct the MLCP during phase-I itself simultaneously with the main building. While planning MLCP, adequate provisions for essential facilities including waiting areas, toilets and drinking water facilities for the users shall be ensured. If MLCP construction is already in full swing reflecting significant momentum when the rest of the hospital is complete, partial completion may be applied for.

d) The proposal has been designed with a building footprint covering 33.19% ground coverage (permissible 40%) and lacks any consolidated green spaces which could be utilised by the staff/attendants/visitors as recreational spaces. These spaces can be extracted by removing and relocating all the mandatory parking requirements (except emergency parking) to the MLCP.

3. The architect is thereby advised to revise the submission accordingly incorporated with the provisions of the MLCP in phase-I and making provisions for consolidated green/ open spaces after removing surface parking. This would enable the Commission to fast-track the approvals to the proposal (looking at its urgent need to the community), and adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission along with a pointwise incorporation/reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the PWD (GNCTD) (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) While the Commission generally insists on accommodating the vast majority of parking required for projects in basements for larger sites, as the timely construction of hospital complex 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 area accommodating water tanks, biomedical waste, ESS, HVAC plant room, cooling towers other utilities etc. shall be suitably screened 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. using appropriate architectural mechanisms so as not to remain visible, and mar the aesthetics of the complex.

c) While planning MLCP adequate provisions shall be considered for essential facilities including waiting areas, toilets and drinking water facilities for the users.

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

2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) All 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.