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

2.    The Commission accepted the concept of the proposal at its meeting held on April 12, 2017.

3.    The building plan proposal for residential accommodation (type-IV (special), type-V & type-VI), club building, community building, Dharamshala, utility shopping 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 inconsistency in the overall proposal,  inappropriate 3D views without annotations, skin sections, detailed elevations & sections, requirements related to solar to raw power versus non-conventional power requirements of the proposal, screening of services, location of ESS, generator set, screening of exhaust pipes, outdoor air-conditioning units etc. and the following observations are to be complied with: 

a)      The Commission observed that the proposal is at an important location and is surrounded by two busy hospitals in the vicinity and opine that it cannot be studied in isolation i.e. it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, 3D views of the site shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings including road networks, structures around the site, for better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.

b)      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) of each and every block (including residential, clubhouse, community building, Dharamshala, utility shopping etc.) at various angles along with the skin sections (in detail with 3D views), clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations and corresponding to proposal drawings be submitted for better understanding of the proposal.

c)      Jaali work on the façade, wherever used extensively, a blow-up detail, including its fixing details, maintenance etc.  shall be given to make it clearer.

d)      Inconsistency was observed between 3D views and site plan/layout plan etc. thereby not presenting the correct picture of the proposal. All drawings etc. shall be ensured to be better coordinated with each other and resubmitted for the review of the Commission.

e)      An appropriate number of annotated site photographs clearly showing the existing site conditions, including the existing buildings on the site, be given to understand the extent and the type of existing construction including AIIMS tunnel passing through the site, across the road to understand the connections and safety in the space for the users.

A.     Site Planning:

a)      The submitted proposal shows the Commercial plot and existing club building in the western part of the site. The site plan does not match with the other layout plans provided in the submission and the proposal being on formal stage should be correct, correlated in all respects with the plans/elevations/3D views etc. All plans shall be co-related and re-submitted with corrected nomenclatures.

b)      The existing road of Aurobindo Marg is already congested and the main entry/exit is located on Aurobindo Marg needs careful planning. The proposal shall ensure the additional traffic generated from the complex does not create hindrance to the existing traffic movement and also does not encroach on to the public areas. The planning shall ensure no tail is formed at the gates during peak hours.

c)      The Commission observed that the housing is supposed to be for the staff working in the AIIMS Hospital situated across Aurobindo Marg from the proposed site and it is understood that the Doctors/staff have to commute to and fro from the AIIMS hospital to the housing during odd hours and peak traffic hours. To ensure a reliable option that also reduces automobile congesting, pedestrian connection between the East and West campus across Aurobindo Marg is recommended.  It is suggested to include an aesthetically pleasing foot-over-bridge or subway, for dedicated and safe pedestrian access, primarily for users of East & West campuses. This would also reduce the congestion caused by pedestrian crossing at grade and improve options for AIIMs commuters.

d)      Overall site planning has to be made self-explanatory. The pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the site is not shown properly. Pedestrian circulation in the site shall be prioritised and made seamless and conflict-free. A combined mobility plan showing a seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plan from outside to the main entrance to every block shall be submitted. A lot of visitors, apart from the residents, would be visiting the complex, provisions shall also be explored for the long term/ short term parking, the taxi drops off points, its parking spaces, holding areas etc. be indicated in the parking/ site plan.

e)      The provision of proposed parking arrangements are not clearly understood. Partial basements have been proposed in the design scheme and a lot of surface parking is still scattered all across the site which could spoil the visual, urban, environmental, aesthetics of the area. It was suggested to explore the possibility of extending the basement further to accommodate surface parking in the basement. The freed-up spaces can be put to judicious use including greens which would help enhance the visual, urban, aesthetic quality of the complex. The Commission opines that these provisions have been made without considering potential future evolution and requirements. This design approach might alter and mar the aesthetics of the area by creating avoidable limitations.

f)       The parking plan needs to be detailed, i.e. it needs to mark the location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. in each parking lot. The number of car parking needs to be provided in the design scheme, including provisions for waiting areas with drinking water, toilet facilities etc. for drivers, guards, maids etc.

B.      Residential Blocks (type-IV (special), type-V & type-VI):

a)   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.

b)   The layout plans for residential units including Type 5 show two staircases facing each other. It is suggested to locate the staircase apart to ensure safety in case of fire. Also, the corridor does not seem to have enough natural light from the cut-outs (the towers being high-rise, lower floors would not receive enough natural light).

c)    The scheme for the basement (all levels) is not self-explanatory. The basement layout plans cannot be seen in isolation and thus should be supplemented by key plans showing their location on the site to understand their location and functioning.

C.      Dharamshala :

a)      The capacity for the dining areas shall be provided along with the associated service of the kitchen for clarity and better understanding of its functioning and circulation.

b)      A typical functional furniture arrangement for the dormitories is to be provided to provide clarity on the functioning and circulation.

c)      Space for drying of clothes shall be identified in the dormitories. These spaces shall be screened appropriately.

D.     Commercial building:

a)      The capacity and functional arrangement for the following areas to be provided to ensure clarity for functioning and circulation in areas including pre-function, kitchen etc.:

i.            Banquet hall (2nd floor)

ii.            Activity room (3rd floor)

iii.            Dining and restaurant (Terrace)

E.      General observations:

a)      The campus has a huge footprint and thus the terraces of the buildings can be utilised for housing solar panels for generating electricity through solar power. Also, details of power requirements viz-a-viz power generated through solar energy shall be indicated. Similarly, the details for water requirement viz-a-viz wastewater generation shall be indicated to understand the use of renewable sources in the complex.

b)      The complex should aim to maximise energy efficiency with the appropriate use of the solar panels on building rooftops etc. and screen them by using appropriate architectural mechanisms and set an example in the city for such future proposals. 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. 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)      The elevations and sections need to be detailed clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. The Plans and elevations for all drawings across the site shall be co-related and submitted. The elevation features in the buildings are not reflected in the sections. Detailed sections reflecting the elevation features (as shown in 3d views as well) shall be submitted.

d)      The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units, at this stage, so as not to mar the aesthetics. A scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material of screening for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views.

e)      An appropriate number of site sections (end to end of the proposed scheme) be submitted for better understanding of the overall scheme clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, etc. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

f)       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.).

g)      Location of services including ESS, generator, exhaust pipes etc, shall be marked on the site and shall be appropriately screened to maintain urban aesthetics. All plumbing pipes/sanitary pipes, outdoor AC units, and 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. using the same architectural elements and materials.

h)      A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) is supposed to be generated in the complex; a detailed solid waste management plan to show effective means of waste disposal along with its location shall be submitted.

i)        The work of art is missing in the submission.  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)        Submitted landscape plans lack clarity in explaining the landscape scheme. The sites’ landscaping to be improved with appropriate treatment (Hardscape & Softscape). They shall be submitted in the respective drawings, shall indicate the details of the trees planted, 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.

4.    The architect was advised to adhere to the above 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 June 10, 2021, specific observations were given.

3.    The revised building plan proposal received (online) 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-03062161011 dated 18.06.2021 and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx meetings (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission on various aspects especially related to provisions to be made for the basement to accommodate surface parking etc.  Based on the response received, revised submission and a detailed discussion was held, 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 building plan proposal received (online) was scrutinised and 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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2.    The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on February 19, 2014, and the revised approval was given in the meeting of the Commission held on July 24, 2019, specific observations were given. The Commission did not accept the NOC for completion plan proposal at its meeting held on April 08, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) for NOC at the completion 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-23032150014 dated 19.04.2021 and found acceptable.

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

2.    The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 30, 2016. Also, approved the revised proposal for demolition and reconstruction proposal at its meeting held on October 18, 2017.

3.    The revised building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction (Block-A and Block-B) received (online) was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a)        The submitted report is a scanned copy and thus lacks clarity, as it is very blurred. A good resolution submission shall be made to make it more comprehensible.

b)        Annotated 3D views of the proposed design scheme shall be submitted for a better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer. Also, the quality of the 3d views is not clear and thus not acceptable. They shall be enhanced with better visuals.

c)        The depiction of the boundary wall in the view is not clear and shall be corrected to match the drawings.

d)        The elevation features in the buildings are not reflected in the respective plans. Detailed sections reflecting the elevation features (As shown in 3d views as well) shall be submitted.

e)        Location of services including DG Set, its exhaust pipes etc, shall be marked on the site and shall be appropriately screened to maintain urban aesthetics. All plumbing pipes/sanitary pipes, outdoor AC units, and service equipments 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 the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. using the same architectural elements and materials.

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.

4. The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations 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 at its meeting held on September 30, 1994 and the NOC from completion was accepted in the meeting held on June 13, 2000. Later, the proposal for additions/alterations was approved in the meeting held on September 14, 2011 and the NOC for completion was accepted in the meeting held on January 18, 2017.

3.    The building plan proposal for regularisation and completion (for additional construction done, four book-shops, office, toilets etc on upper basement, two store rooms on 4th floor, canopy on ground floor etc.) 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 construction done at site and its regularisation, not providing appropriate number of photographs of the areas for under regularisation and its completion respectively. Based on the discussion held and the submission made, the following observation is to be complied with:

a)   The Commission observed that an appropriate number of photographs of the area (for additional construction done, four book-shops, office, toilets etc. on upper basement, two store rooms on 4th floor, canopy on ground floor etc.) for which regularisation and completion has been submitted are missing in the submission, the same shall be provided with proper uncut views from all the sides.

4. The architect was advised to adhere to the above 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 did not accept the concept of the proposal at its meeting held on July 17, 2019 specific observations were given.

3.     The revised proposal for beautification of entry point of Delhi received (online) at conceptual stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a)      The Commission observed that the submitted design proposal appears to be insufficiently resolved for a significant entrance to the Capital city of India, especially as it focuses on the traffic island rather than the overall sense of entry sufficiently including the two sides of either carriageway. National and international precedence should be further explored for a more suitable and comprehensive proposal that fits better in context and reflects the city’s past, present and/or future more appropriately.

b)      The proposed location of the scheme is in an area surrounded by high-density commercial, government, and/or residential, development on both sides of the border that drives very significant pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement at slow speed and also encourages street vendors/hawkers catering to commuters.  The design proposal does not address the issues of resolving either the congestion due to lack of streamlined movement from pedestrians, undesigned bus stops, hawkers, and other impediments.  The proposal focuses on a small traffic island which unless suitably integrated in the design with both sides beyond the carriageway could be a traffic hazard and also drive unsafe pedestrian movement.  Also, the submission lacks 3d views showing the lighting arrangement especially at night time. The same shall also be incorporated in the submission.

c)      The design shall be seen holistically i.e. it shall not only be seen along X-axis but also shall include area along edge of the connecting main road also to make a comprehensive design/scheme.

d)      Flora in the landscaping scheme, including climbers, creepers, and ground cover like grass, and shown in the design scheme, should be suitably identified by botanical or common names after confirming that their survival and health is ensured in prevailing conditions.  Maintenance aspects of the scheme shall also be considered and elaborated through design scheme, including lighting arrangements to ensure availability of electricity during evening hours.

e)      The proposed material in the scheme i.e. Powder coated stainless steel benefits are not fully understood, and the materiality of the proposal should be detailed further, including the material of paving. 

f)       The 3D views indicate pedestrian movement in the pavilion area which has not been indicated in the layout plan.  Considering huge vehicular movement around the proposed site (being a traffic island) appropriate options shall be explored for a conflict-free pedestrian movement and shown appropriately in the scheme.

4.     The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations and submit three options with alternate design scheme, materials & specifications 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 did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 05, 2021 specific observations were given.

3.    Now, the revised building plan proposal received (online) at 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-29072155032 dated 10.08.2021 and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx meetings (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission on various aspects related to not providing annotated 3d views, comprehensive detailing (including materials), detailed skin sections, air condition strategy & its screening, roof top utilities, location of generator sets including screening of the exhaust pipes etc. Based on the response received, revised submission and a detailed discussion held, the following observation to be complied with: 

a)      It was observed that the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-29072155032 dated 10.08.2021 indicated at sr. no. 2 (a, c, d, f, g, k, m) inadequate replies for this has been given.

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