MINUTES OF THE 1599th MEETING (ONLINE) OF THE DELHI URBAN ART COMMISSION (DUAC) HELD ON THURSDAY, JULY 01, 2021

A.   The minutes of the 1598th meeting (online) of the Delhi Urban Art Commission held on 25.06.2021 were confirmed and approved.

SL. No.PROPOSALOBSERVATIONS /SUGGESTIONSDECISIONREMARKS

B.Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1597th meeting held on 17.06.2021.1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1597th meeting held on 17.06.2021 was discussed.
Noted by the Commission.

C. PROJECT PROPOSALS:

1Revised Building plans proposal in respect of IOCL Petrol Pump at Outer Ring Road Near Varun Niketan, Pitampura, Delhi.

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

2. The commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on October 01, 2020 specific observations were given.


3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised and following observations are to be complied with:


a) The area accommodating Compressor and the Cascade above the metal structure at the rear of the site could spoil the visual and urban aesthetics of the complex, thus it shall be ensured to screen it by considering appropriate architectural mechanisms including vertical greens.


b) The Commission observed that the location provided for Pollution checks arrangements right at the egress could cause hindrances to the departing vehicles, and overcrowding. It was accordingly suggested to explore the possibility of relocating it at the ingress after leaving sufficient unhindered spaces for the inward bound vehicles.


c) Also, 3D views of the pollution check arrangements indicated in the proposal a new type of mechanism for the pollution checks in the town. The Commission would like to know its overall detailed functioning/working etc. with reference images and would be appreciative of the architect to share the same in the subsequent submissions of petrol pumps.

d) The architect has submitted three options for the work of art. The work of art in order of preference with option number three & two is acceptable.

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 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

Approved, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

2Plans in respect of Demolition and reconstruction at plot no. 159, Golf Links. 

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

2. The building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised and following observations are to be complied with:

a) The quality of 3d views is not appropriate. They are very sketchy and the scale, proportion, materials etc. are not understood. Also, it was observed that different type of materials has been used on the façade but, in absence of the annotated 3d views it was difficult to comprehend the overall scheme for its overall impact on the visual, and aesthetics. It was accordingly suggested to provide annotated 3D views clearly specifying the materials to be used on the façade to make it clearer.


b) Outdoor air conditioning units could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, provision shall be made in the design to accommodate outdoor AC units 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.


c) Provision of an open toilet has been shown on the second floor, needs clarification considering privacy, safety of the users.


d) The plumbing/rain water/sanitary pipes on all facades shall be ensured to be screened using appropriate screening mechanism so as not to mar the aesthetics.


e) The parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.  The parking does not seem to be workable, it needs to be clearly indicated with location and car movement pattern, etc.

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


g) 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. by appropriate architectural mechanisms.


h) 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.


3. The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations & furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply in the subsequent submission

Not approved, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting

3Building plans proposal in respect of Govt. Co-Ed Senior Secondary School (Maharana Pratap Sarvodya School) at Sector-5, Rohini.

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 following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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), 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.


b) It is understood that most of the classrooms may not be air-conditioned, but  preplanning can be done 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, provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units, at this stage, so as not to mar the aesthetics.


c) An appropriate number of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) shall be submitted for 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.


d) The scattered parking provisions made on the surface throughout the site, wastes a lot of surface space. It was not appreciated by the Commission. Alternative option for basement shall be explored to relocate and accommodate the required parking and the freed-up space to be put to judicious uses.


e) The site seems to be vehicle oriented rather than pedestrian (students) friendly. Therefore, Road network needs to be minimised and wherever possible shall be converted to green surface.


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 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.


h) Terrace plan is missing in the submission. The same shall be provided along with the roof top utilities.

i) All plans shall be substantiated with North points to understand the best orientation of the proposal according to the climatic conditions of the city.


j) The elements of sustainability are missing in the design scheme. These shall be identified and marked on the plans. 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.


k) 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 using the same architectural elements and materials.


3. The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations & 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.

4Layout and Building plans proposal in respect of Fire Station and Residential Quarters at Okhla (Conceptual stage).

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

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


A. Site planning:


a) The Commission observed that the proposal 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), 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) The site seems to be vehicle oriented rather than pedestrian friendly. Therefore, Road network needs to be minimised by redesign and wherever possible shall be converted to Hard green surface. A lot of space is getting wasted in the circulation in the entire scheme. This can be minimized by efficient building design. Space shall be efficiently planned for users.


d) The presence of Tar road to be minimised in the site. Instead, appropriate pedestrian connections shall be established which are appropriately landscaped. Proper signages to be provided throughout the site at various locations to ensure proper wayfinding.

B. Fire Station:


a) The placement of parking arrangements made on the surface area and the double stack parking provisions at the rear are not appreciated by the Commission. It could have an impact on the visual, urban aesthetics of the area. Therefore, alternative options for creating a basement shall be explored to relocate all surface parking (including double stack parking) requirements of the fire-station and the freed-up space to be put to judicious use.


b) Elevations, materials, finishes, architectural elements etc. shall be such designed/selected to give distinctiveness to the fire station. Aesthetics to be improved, architectural elements to be simplified.

c) Areas segregating the fire station with the residential blocks shall be screened using appropriate architectural mechanism including vertical greens so as to enhance the aesthetics of the building complex, and its details shall be submitted (plans/elevations/3D views etc.).

C. Residential Quarters:

a) The placement of parking arrangements made in the stilt area are not appreciated by the Commission. Alternative option for creating a basement shall be explored to relocate all surface parking requirements of the fire-station and the freed-up space to be put to judicious use including utilising the stilt space as community/social space for the residents (elderly, children etc.). A provision needs to be made for toilets and sitting area for maids/guards/drivers in the stilt area.


b) A combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plan from outside to the various parts of the resident blocks to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within site.


c) The balconies need to be screened appropriately along with the provision of screening of drying clothes, dish antennas etc.

D. General observations (for fire station and Residential blocks):

a) The air-conditioners 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. A scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material of screening for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views. In the case of VRV systems, their location shall be highlighted in the relevant drawings etc. and shown.


b) The skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.


c) 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.)

d) 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 ) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.


e) A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) supposed to be generated in the complex, a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location on the site plan be submitted.


f) 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.

g) All plumbing pipes/sanitary pipes, outdoor AC units, and service equipments 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 using the same architectural elements and materials.


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

The concept of the proposal is not accepted, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

The following were present at the Meeting (online) of the Commission held on Thursday, July 01, 2021, from 02.30 PM onwards:

1. Shri Ajit Pai, Chairman, DUAC

2. Prof. (Dr) Mandeep Singh, Member, DUAC

3. Shri Ashutosh Agarwal, Member, DUAC

4. Smt. Nivedita Pande, Member, DUAC