MINUTES OF THE 1600th MEETING (ONLINE) OF THE DELHI URBAN ART COMMISSION (DUAC) HELD ON THURSDAY, JULY 08, 2021

A.   The minutes of the 1599th meeting (online) of the Delhi Urban Art Commission held on 01.07.2021 were confirmed and approved.

SL. No.PROPOSALOBSERVATIONS /SUGGESTIONSDECISIONREMARKS

B.Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1598th meeting held on 25.06.2021.1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1598th meeting held on 25.06.2021 was discussed.
Noted by the Commission.

C. PROJECT PROPOSALS:

1Revised Building plans proposal in respect of Filling-cum-Service Station at Chirag Delhi, Madangir Road. 

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 October 30, 2019, 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-25101955058 Dated 06.11.2019 along with the set of common observations given by the Commission on a similar proposal submitted by the same architect. Though the Commission intended to discuss the issues related to pollution check machine, screening of area accommodating Compressor and the Cascade etc. but continuous efforts to connect with him online were unsuccessful as he was not available. Based on the response received and revised submission the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed that the architect has been asked to provide details of the new mechanism, for the pollution check machine, on a similar proposal submitted by the same architect. But no clarity has been provided on the same. The existing structure is a kiosk with several supporting elements (including computer, printers, pollution measuring machine with pipes, almirah, air-conditioner, sitting space for the caretakers etc.), but the new mechanism is a compact machine and the commission is unable to comprehend its functioning/overall mechanisms etc. and thus it imperative to be explained in detail.

b) Also, in terms of the observation given on a similar proposal “The area accommodating the 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 shall be screened by considering appropriate architectural mechanisms including vertical greens” have not been complied with.


c) The Commission observed that the location provided for Pollution check arrangements at the egress could cause hindrances to the exiting vehicles, and also cause overcrowding. It was accordingly suggested to explore the possibility of relocating it at the entry after leaving sufficient unhindered spaces for the inward bound vehicles.

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

e) Also, it is again reiterated that 3D views of the pollution check arrangements indicated in the proposal show a new type of mechanism for pollution checking. 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.

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


4. The architect was advised to revise their scheme addressing the issues related to screening of Compressor and the Cascade above the metal structure and detailed functioning/working of the new pollution check mechanism with reference images to understand its functioning etc. and 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.

2Revised layout and building plan proposal in respect of Group Housing at 1,3 Cavalry Lane & 4 Chhatra Marg (near Vishwavidyalaya metro station).

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

2. The Commission did not approve the revised layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 03, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised layout and building plan proposal received (online) was scrutinized along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-27052123014 dated 09.06.2021 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.

b) The DG sets, transformer, and the service equipment at site and on 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.

3Building plans proposal in respect of Karbi Bhawan at Plot no-11, Sector-13 Dwarka.

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 the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Only one photograph of the site has been provided which do not indicate the required details. An appropriate number of site pictures shall be provided to show the existing details on the site.


b) 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.


c) The design does not have a welcoming/inviting entry to the complex. The architect is advised to revise the
design with a more welcoming entry.


d) The air-conditioning mechanism in the complex is not explained in the design scheme. Outdoor air conditioning units 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 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.

e) Peripheral greens to be maintained in the complex to ensure open spaces are utilised judiciously.


f) Appropriate signages/ graphics shall be installed in the building complex to ensure proper wayfinding.

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

h) 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.


i)  Internal furniture arrangement in common areas like conference room, dining room, back offices etc. shall be provided to elucidate their functioning efficiently. 


j) The design of the gate and the boundary wall has a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex. The details of the gate, boundary wall to be furnished in the design scheme including plans, sections and 3d views along with details of the materials.

k) 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.


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. 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.


m) The work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level (human eye) to be installed in the Community facilities at appropriate places and shown in the relevant drawings.

n) The location of the generator and transformer to be located in respective layout plans with appropriate mechanism for its screening so as not to mar the aesthetics. All service equipment at the terrace ensured to 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


3. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission 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.

4Completion plans proposal in respect of Type-VI, multi-storeyed housing flats for Rail Vikas Nigam Limited near Leela Hotel Moti Bagh. 

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

2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for Type-V, Type-VI, and the Community facilities at its meeting held on January 18, 2017.

3. The part completion plan proposal for NOC for tower type-VI (basement, stilt + 09 floors) received (online) was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal is for the NOC for part completion and the quality of photographs submitted for actually completed construction is not legible and acceptable. Legible, coordinated drawings/photographs in the high resolution shall be submitted for clarity and understanding.

b) Cropped photographs of the completion plan proposal have been submitted which do not clearly indicate the required details. An appropriate number of existing site pictures to be provided to understand the actual completed construction at the site. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides to comprehend the proposal evidently.

c) From the submitted photographs, it is clearly evident that a generator set has been placed in one of the setbacks and the two exhaust pipes protruding out from the generator set running vertically along the façade are spoiling the aesthetics of the residential complex, which was initially not part of the formal approval taken from the Commission.

d) It was, accordingly, suggested that all service equipment on the façade, and 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. so as not to mar the aesthetics.

e) 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 internally as well as external changes made with respect to the sanctioned plan, if any.

f) The covering made on the ramps and canopies at the entrance were initially not part of the formal approval taken from the Commission, which needs clarification.


g) The Commission observed that since the proposal is for the NOC for the completion, it was accordingly suggested to include an appropriate number of photographs of the interior areas also including the parking areas in stilts and the basement parking etc.

4.  The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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

5Building plans proposal for addition/alteration in respect of D-Mall at A1, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura. 

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 19, 2005, and the NOC for completion was approved in the meeting held on February 03, 2010. The building plan proposal for additions /alterations was approved in the meeting of the Commission held on January 04, 2019. The Commission did not approve the revised building plan proposal for additions/alteration at its meeting held on January 08, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations 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-05012122002 dated 14.01.2021 and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The selection of glass on the façade shall be as per relevant norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

b) The 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 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.

6Building plans proposal for additions/alteration in respect of Senior Secondary School at Sector-10, Dwarka for Virender Ghai Educational Society. 

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


2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 22, 2010, and the NOC for completion plan proposal was approved in the meeting held on November 23, 2015.


3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations received (online) was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The 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 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.

7Building plans proposal in respect of Redevelopment of National School of Drama at Bahawalpur house, 1 Bhagwan Das Road, Mandi House (Conceptual stage) .

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 October 22, 2020, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal at the conceptual stage 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 night rendered 3d views, the central road between open-air theatre and the proposed buildings, options for putting up of retractable bollards, overall pedestrian/vehicular circulation in the campus, location of entry/exit ramps & their coverings,  overall improvement of the elevation façade of block part ‘c’, improvement of the entire canopy design with materials, the extension of the water body, skin sections, material pallets etc. and observed that most of the observations made by the Commission earlier have been incorporated/complied with. However, based on the detailed discussion held and revised scheme submitted along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-21102062035, 62(35)/2020-DUAC dated 29.10.2020 and following observations are to be complied with:  

a) The Commission observed that the project being of national importance and being strategically located needs careful design and planning considerations, contextual to the site and surroundings. The building’s function is such that it would be active during night times as well. Thus, the night visuals/3d views to be supplemented with other 3d views. The 3d views for the rooftop space frame shall also be given for better clarity of the structure in the building setting.


b) The site seems to be vehicle oriented rather than pedestrian-friendly. To avoid conflict between the two, it was suggested to reconsider the provisions made for the road between proposed building blocks and the open-air theatre and explore the options of converting it into a pedestrian public plaza that can be used for recreational purposes. To address emergency fire situations, it is suggested to provide hydraulic bollards in the central plaza to access the buildings from all sides.


c) The proposed entry to the site is suggested to be shifted to the edge (towards Bhagwan Das road) so that the need for the central road (6m wide) is eliminated and it gets converted into pedestrian-only space. The basement car parking can be accessed from the revised entry and exit to ensure efficient vehicular movement.


d) The drop-off for the VVIP with a defined porch can be located at the surface and the general public can access the building from the basement parking to avoid queuing of vehicles in peak times.

e) Considering the different usages of the proposed building block, provisions 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 clearly indicated in the
respective plans.


f) The building being primarily for public use shall have seamless, uninterrupted pedestrian movement to ensure, universal accessibility and unhindered movement for all.

g) The curved porch (part-C) is not appreciated for its form. Instead, other design options shall be explored including its location, form, architectural elements and design etc.


h) In Part C the vertical bands in stone seem to be abruptly discontinuing, thus shall be reconsidered for revision in façade design. The vertical features shall be continued to the bottom to ensure uniformity.  Also, the water body shown at the entrance of part-A is suggested to be continued throughout till Part-B to ensure uniformity and add an element of interest.


i) Detailed skin sections to be shown to provide clarity on the fixing of stone details in the elevation. A palette sheet for materials used on the façade to be provided in the proposal.


j) The project being of national importance and a frequently visited public space needs to have an Art zoning plan. It shall include details of appropriate locations, themes, material etc. along with reference images in terms of the public art provisions stipulated under Chapter 13 "Provision for Public Art" of the Unified Building Bye-Laws 2016 (UBBL) for Delhi, and in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.

k) The mechanism for air-conditioning in the complex is not explained in the design scheme (especially for the boys and girls hostel blocks). Air-conditioners/outdoor units 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.


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

m) 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.


n) From the site photographs, it is evident that there are trees all around the site. A superimposed plan of the proposed building with existing trees to be provided to understand the extent of trees being cut.


o) The design of the boundary wall shall suit the context and location of the building. It shall show cohesiveness with the existing architectural character of the complex (being in LBZ area) in terms of architectural elements, materials, texture, finishes etc.


p) Signages provided on the façade / boundary need to be properly located so as to serve the purpose of signages and to ensure that they do not mar the aesthetics of the façade.

q) The 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.


r) 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.


4. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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

8Layout and building plan proposal in respect of Girls’ Senior Secondary School on Khasra no. 321-325 at Sultanpur (Conceptual stage)

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 building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 08, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the 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-26032127026 dated 19.04.2021 indicated at sr. no. 2 (a, b, d, g, h ) inadequate replies for this has been given. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission 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 a 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, the 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 a 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, waste a lot of surface space. It was not appreciated by the Commission. An alternative option for the 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, the Road network needs to be minimised and wherever possible shall be converted to a 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) The elements of sustainability are missing in the design scheme. These shall be identified and marked on the plans.  Solar voltaic panels can be mounted on the rooftop. The school building should aim to maximise energy efficiency and set an example for such future proposals. 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.

i) 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. 

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

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

9Layout and building plan proposal in respect of Boys Senior Secondary School at Aya Nagar (Conceptual stage).

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 building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 08, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the 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-24032127028 dated 19.04.2021 indicated at sr. no. 2 (a, b, d, g, h ) inadequate replies for this has been given. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission 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 a 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, the 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 a 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. An alternative option for the 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, the road network needs to be minimised and wherever possible shall be converted to a 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) The elements of sustainability are missing in the design scheme. These shall be identified and marked on the plans.  Solar voltaic panels can be mounted on the rooftop. The school building should aim to maximise energy efficiency and set an example for such future proposals. 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.

i) 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.


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

Concept 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 of the Commission held on Thursday, July 08, 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