SL. No. | PROPOSAL | | OBSERVATIONS /SUGGESTIONS | | DECISION | | REMARKS |
---|
|
B. | Action Taken Report on Minutes of 1568th meeting (online) held on 04.12.2020. | | 1. The Action Taken Reports on minutes of the 1568th meeting (online) of the Delhi Urban Art Commission held on 04.12.2020 was discussed. | | Noted by the Commission | | |
|
C. PROJECT PROPOSALS: |
1 | Revised Building
plans proposal in respect of IOCL Petrol Pump at National Bye Pass, Near
Gokulpur Escape, Ghonda Block B & C, Zone-E14. | | 1. The
proposal was forwarded by the EDMC ( online ) for consideration of the
Commission.
2. The
Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September
04, 2020 specific observations were given.
3. Now,
the revised building plan proposal received (online) at formal stage was
scrutinised and following observations were given: 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. b. All service equipment
at the terrace should be properly camouflaged (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 | | Approved,
observations given. | | The Commission decided to take
action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the
meeting. |
|
2 | Layout and Building
plans proposal in respect of New campus of Ambedkar University at Dheerpur,
Delhi. | | 1. The
proposal was forwarded by the PWD (GNCTD) (online) for consideration of the
Commission.
2. The
Commission did not approve the layout & building plan proposal at its
meeting held on July 24, 2020 specific observations were given.
3. The
revised layout & building plan proposal received (online) at formal stage
was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect and following
observations were given: a.
The Commission observed that in terms of the
earlier observation of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter
no. OL-14072061012 dated 31.07.2020 indicated at sr. no. 2 ( a, c, d, e, f, g,
h, i, j, k, l, m, n ) it was observed inadequate compliances for this have been
given. b.
The Commission reiterated its earlier
observations given at its meeting held on July 24, 2020 that considering the usages, scale of the project, the
architect/proponent, may consider to put up the proposals for approval in the
following manner: i. Master Plan of the entire scheme. ii. Plans, Elevations, Sections and other details
of Individual blocks. c. The
Master plan ( Layout Plan ) for the
site is suggested to be redone with zoning, where the use zones are
segregated keeping in mind principles of pedestrian connectivity, walkability,
continuous pedestrian movement, from entry/exit, through the whole complex
with its linkages, other facilities for the convenient movement of the
users/students, integrated building blocks for better aesthetics, etc.
4. The architect was advised to re-design/re-look
the entire complex, with a fresh approach taking into consideration the
observations made above and furnish a point wise reply. | | Not
approved, observations given. | | The Commission decided to take
action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the
meeting. |
|
3 | Revised building plan
proposal in respect of Resident Doctor Hostel block at PGIMER RML Hospital, New
Delhi. | | 1. The
proposal was forwarded by the NDMC (online) for consideration of the
Commission.
2. The
Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on October
05, 2016, but did not approve the revised building plan proposal at its meeting
held on November 20, 2020 and specific observations were given.
3. The
revised building plan proposal at formal stage received (online) was
scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with
the architect on Cisco WebEx Meetings, wherein the architect explained the
overall intent of the design scheme, and provided clarifications to the queries
of the Members related to elevation façade, architectural features etc.
However, based on the detailed discussion and the revised building plan
proposal submitted along with the replies submitted in compliance to the
earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation
letter no: OL-17112024035 dated 26.11.2020 following observations were given: a. To make the
elevations more coherent and maintain a consistency in the elevation façade, it
was suggested that the proposed brown band to be continued till
the top and not be ended abruptly. Simultaneously, the fins proposed
shall be carried on to the ground floor and should not be left midway. b. Mural ‘A’ to be
removed. 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. c. The design of the
windows is suggested to be recessed so as to include the services/air-conditioning
out-door units and also ensure they are not visible in the façade at a later
stage. The fins shall be integrated in the design by including as a part of the
window detail. 4. The architect was advised to adhere to the above 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. |
|
4 | Proposed residential
building at Chankyapuri, New Delhi on Northern Railway Land at plot no. X, near
Safdarjung Railway Station, Delhi. | | 1.
The proposal was forwarded by the IRSDC ( online ) for
consideration of the Commission. 2.
The
Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on
August 14, 2020 and specific observations were given. 3.
The revised building plan proposal received ( online )
at formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted in compliance to the earlier
observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: 16(1)/2020-DUAC
dated August 20, 2020 following observations were given: a. The Stilt parking seems to be not working appropriately.
It is suggested to accommodate the parking elsewhere and utilise the stilt
space as community/social space for the residents. A provision shall be made
for toilets and sitting area for maids/guards/drivers in the stilt area of
every block. b. To avoid the conflict between the pedestrian and
the vehicular movement, it was suggested to flip the porch provided at the drop
off points of the individual blocks so that the vehicular movement is
restricted at the rear. c. The provision made for boundary wall between green
areas; volleyball court etc. shall be removed so that the green area is
extended till the residential blocks for the convenient use of the residents. 4. The architect was advised to adhere to the above 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. |
|
5 | Proposal for additions/alteration in respect of
Seth Vihar CGHS Ltd. at plot no. 4, Sector
-18A, Dwarka, Delhi.(Conceptual Stage). | | 1. The
proposal was forwarded directly by the architect (online) for consideration of
the Commission. 2. The
Commission approved the layout & building plan proposal at its meeting held
on August 20, 2002 and the proposal for NOC was approved at the meeting held on
October 07, 2009. 3. The
building plan proposal for additions/alterations received (online) was
scrutinised and following observations were given: 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 provision of plumbing shaft/
arrangement shall be provided at the design stage to avoid future
discrepancies. It shall be ensured that the pipes are appropriately
screened so that they are not exposed on the outer façade and mar the
aesthetics, need to be clearly
marked on the plans/elevations/3D views etc., along with appropriate means
of screening. c. Existing photographs clearly indicate the
presence of air-conditioning units on the external facade of the existing
units. Innovative design provision shall be made in the design itself at
this stage to accommodate the outdoor units, so as not to mar the overall
aesthetics of the complex. The scheme shall be shown clearly on the
plans/elevations and 3D views. d. All
encroachments/extensions/corrugated sheets, covering of balconies with
temporary materials etc. in the building structures shall be removed. e. Provision of proposed
parking not clearly understood. It needs to be clearly indicated in
appropriate plans and other parking details, location of no. of cars, car
movement pattern, etc. Existing parking and the parking from additional
FAR ( proposed ) to be shown clearly on the layout plan with the
bifurcation of two. f. The
added balcony structure shall be such designed that it withstands weather
effects, impacts from calamities like earthquake etc. as it is an additional
structure added to the existing superstructure. It shall be ensured it is
braced strongly to the building and does not impact the safety of the
superstructure while addition/alteration. g. 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. h. All service equipment at the terrace should
be properly camouflaged (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. 4. The architect was
advised to adhere to the above observations in the formal submission to be
submitted subsequently and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply. | | Accepted,
observations given. | | The Commission decided to take action in the matter
without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting. |
|
6 | Proposed Commercial
Building at plot no.4, Mustatil No. 19, Killa Nos. 11/2 Min (3-19), 12 (4-16),
13 (4-16) and 14 (5-14) at Village Samalkha, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. (Conceptual Stage). | | 1. The
proposal was forwarded directly by the architect ( online ) for consideration
of the Commission. 2. The
Commission did not accept the concept of the building plan proposal at its
meeting held on October 22, 2020 specific observations were given. 3. The
revised conceptual building plan proposal received ( online ) was scrutinised
along with the replies to the observations of the Commission communicated vide
DUAC observation letter no: OL-14102027074 dated 27.10.2020 and following observations
were given: a.
To bring coherence in the elevation façade, the North-East
side elevational façade shall also be made consistent to the South-West façade
by removing the triangular pattern made on the elevation. The stand out brown
color appears to be very bold for the building and thus needs to be made subtle
or replace with a better colour combination including white or monochromatic. 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. c.
All service equipment at the terrace should be
properly camouflaged (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. 4. The architect was
advised to adhere to the above observations in the formal submission to be
submitted subsequently and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply. | | Accepted,
observations given. | | The Commission decided to take
action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the
meeting. |
|
7 | Building plans in
respect of Working Woman’s Hostel at Vasant Village, New Delhi. (Conceptual Stage). | | 1. The
proposal was forwarded directly by the architect (online) for consideration of
the Commission. 2. The Commission
did not accept the concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on
November 06, 2019 specific observations were given. 3. The
revised conceptual building plan proposal received ( online ) was scrutinised
along with the replies to the observations of the Commission communicated vide
DUAC observation letter no: OL-22101927117 dated 14.11.2019 and following
observations were given: a. The proposed work of art on
the façade is not appropriate and therefore, a 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, preferably in the form of a sculpture. b. Provisions for
Air-conditioning units shall be made in the design at this stage by
exploring innovative design mechanisms to accommodate the
outdoor units, so as not to mar the overall aesthetics of the complex. c. Columns piercing through the
semi-circular arch in the front façade appear to be too absorptive and need
to be relooked at. d. All the balconies shall be
screened appropriately for the safety and privacy of the users. e. 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. f. All service equipment
at the terrace should be properly camouflaged (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. | | Accepted,
observations given. | | The Commission decided to take
action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the
meeting. |
|
8 | Layout/Master plan in respect of Dwarka Smart Hub
(Conceptual stage). | | 1. The
proposal was forwarded directly by the architect ( online ) for consideration
of the Commission. 2. The
Commission did not accept the concept of the Master plan/layout of the proposal
at its meeting held on October 01, 2020 specific observations were given. 3. The
revised conceptual Master plan/layout plan of the proposal received (
online ) was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco
WebEx Meetings, wherein the architect explained the overall intent of the
design scheme, and provided clarifications to the queries of the Members
related to traffic, vehicular & pedestrian circulation network, foot prints
of the building blocks shown in the submission, inconsistency in the submission etc. However,
based on the detailed discussion and the revised Master plan/layout plan proposal
submitted along with the replies in compliance to the earlier observations of
the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-19092027071
dated 08.10.2020 following observations were given: a.
It was observed that in terms of earlier
observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no.
OL-19092027071 dated 08.10.2020 indicated at sr. no. 3 ( a, b, c, d, e, g ) inadequate
compliances for this have been given. b.
It was observed that though the submission is for
the Master plan/layout plan but the building block have
been shown in the submission. The submission is very conceptual and the scheme
is not clearly understood due to lack of detailed drawings. The architect is
advised to submit detailed drawings at a scale of not more than 1:500 to appreciate
and comment on the scheme. c.
The circulation pattern and path for pedestrian
movement in each plot to be marked clearly in legitimate drawings, clearly
highlighting a conflict free movement pattern for the pedestrians. The
vehicular circulation network shall be clearly indicated with markings for direction
of the vehicles. d.
The pedestrian connections across various plots
shall be explained with the help of appropriate sections. The connections of
the same to the building footprints shall be clearly marked to show conflict
free movement. Elements like table top, pedestrian crossings etc. shall be
marked appropriately in the respective plans. The architect is suggested to explore
options of underground connections which are sunken and not subways which are
unsafe for use. e.
The vehicular circulation is varying in different
slides, the same may be corrected, correlated and resubmitted. f.
It was suggested to create a pedestrian plaza
between plots 3 and 4 by creating sunken connections. This will enable to
integrate the plots and also create barrier free access for the visitors. g.
The form of the building seems too conceptual, and
not functional. The thick, slanting columns are too bulky and their purpose is
not clear in the submitted design scheme. The form does not seem to achieve
efficiency in the design as it does not convey function and working of the
various buildings appropriately. 4. The architect was
advised to adhere to the above observations and furnish a pointwise
incorporation/reply. | | Not
accepted, observations given. | | The Commission decided to take
action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the
meeting. |
|
9 | Layout and Building
plans in respect of RRTS Stabling Yard & Supporting residential facilities
at Jangpura, New Delhi. (Conceptual
stage). | | 1. The
proposal was forwarded directly by the architect (online) for consideration of
the Commission. 2. The
Commission did not accept the concept of the building plan proposal at its
meeting held on November 06, 2020 and specific observations were given. 3. The
revised layout and building plan proposal received ( online) at conceptual
stage was scrutinised along with the replies in compliance to the earlier
observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no:
OL-04112027082 dated 11.11.2020 following observations were given: a. It
was observed that in terms of earlier observations of the Commission
communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-04112027082 dated 11.11.2020
indicated at sr. no. 2 E ( a ) inadequate compliances for this have been given. b. Inadequate
scheme/drawings for stabling yard ( except operational areas) have been
provided unable to comprehend the proposal clearly. The same shall be correlated
and resubmitted for clarity and better understanding of the proposal. 4. The architect was
advised to adhere to the above observations and furnish a pointwise
incorporation/reply. | | Housing
scheme building plan proposals accepted. | | The Commission decided to take
action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the
meeting. |
|
D. ADDITIONAL DETAILS: |
1 | Building plans in respect of residence of Hon’ble Chief Minister of Delhi at 6 Flag Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. | | 1. The proposal was forwarded by the PWD ( GNCTD ) ( online ) for consideration of the Commission. 2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on December 11, 2020 specific observations were given. 3. The revised proposal at formal stage received ( online ) was scrutinised along with the replies in compliance to the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-26112061016 dated 16.12.2020 following observations were given: a. The use of Indian column base/capitals in the revised elevation were appreciated by the Commission. b. It was suggested to screen the front buildings i.e. the estate office and the office building with trees/creepers, as appropriate, to maintain the line of vision to the main building. c. Appropriate screening arrangements shall be made to ensure screening of clothes hanging in the balconies. Appropriate arrangements/spaces shall be created to house air-conditioners, etc. so as not to mar the aesthetics. d. 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. e. All service equipment at the terrace should be properly camouflaged (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.
| | Approved, observations given. | | The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting. |