- The South-DMC forwarded (through OPAAS) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
- The Commission did not accept the conceptual proposal for the JJV Nikunj Hotel Complex at Plot no. 1, NH-8, Samalkha at its meetings held on December 18, 2025, March 5, 2026 and April 29, 2026; specific observations were made.
- The building plans proposal, for demolition and reconstruction, comprising of (3B + G + 7 floors) received (through OPAAS) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made including drawings, documentations, project report etc., the following observations are to be complied with:
a) The Commission observed that, although the proposal has been submitted at the Formal Stage, the submitted 3D views do not provide a clear representation of the proposal. The surrounding development has been depicted in a blurred manner, and the red plot boundary line shown around the proposed structure extends into the adjoining land parcels, creating ambiguity regarding the extent of the site under consideration. The 3D views shall therefore be revised to clearly restrict the plot boundary to the subject site and eliminate any unnecessary or confusing depiction of the surrounding proposed development.
Further, appropriately annotated 3D views of the proposed design scheme shall be superimposed on the actual existing superstructure (not through 3d views depiction) and presented within the existing site context, including adjoining road networks and surrounding structures, to facilitate a clear understanding of the proposal, its architectural interventions, and its visual impact in the actual environment.
b) The Architect shall submit complete, self-explanatory, and appropriately annotated 3D views from all relevant sides, including bird's-eye views, clearly depicting the proposed design scheme. Detailed annotated views of key areas, including drop-off zones, lobby and public interface areas, hotel lobby, banquet pre-function areas, and other significant spaces, as considered necessary to adequately explain the design scheme, shall also be provided. The 3D views shall be fully coordinated with the submitted plans, elevations, and sections, and shall clearly indicate the proposed façade materials, finishes, and other significant architectural elements to facilitate a comprehensive understanding and assessment of the proposal by the Commission.
c) The submission has been submitted at the formal stage but the photographs of the existing site context have not been provided clearly to understand the existing situation in the right context. An appropriate nos. of annotated site photographs shall be provided to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides for the better understanding of the Commission.
d) The extent of the site and plot boundaries are not clearly identifiable from the submitted drawings, including the 3D views. After due verification by the concerned local body, the Architect shall submit an authenticated site plan clearly delineating and confirming the site extent and plot boundaries for the information and record of the Commission.
e) The Commission observed that the detailed ground floor plans have been submitted in isolation and do not adequately demonstrate their relationship with the surrounding site and overall circulation network. Essential details, including access roads, entry and exit points, drop-off areas and their access arrangements, peripheral roads, and their integration with the overall site planning, have not been clearly indicated. The ground floor plans shall therefore be revisited and appropriately detailed (including enlarged details) to clearly illustrate these aspects and facilitate the judicious review and consideration of the proposal by the Commission.
f) Large terraces have been indicated in the plans without clearly showing the means of access. On comparison with the submitted 3D views, it appears that these terraces are proposed to be used for landscaping; however, the associated details, including access arrangements, soil depth/filling required to sustain the proposed landscape elements, drainage, its screening mechanism, and other relevant provisions, have not been furnished. The proposal shall therefore be revisited, and enlarged plans, detailed sections, and part-sections shall be submitted to clearly explain the proposed terrace landscaping and associated design and construction details for the consideration of the Commission.
g) The submitted elevations and sections do not adequately explain the proposed design scheme and lack the required detail and coordination expected at the Formal Stage. The Commission reviewed the overall façade from the perspectives of visual quality, aesthetics, and environmental responsiveness. It was observed that almost all sides of the proposed motel building have been envisaged with extensive glazed façades, without adequate consideration of the building orientation, Delhi's climatic conditions, and the environmental implications of such treatment. The façade design shall therefore be comprehensively revisited to evolve a more contextually and climatically responsive architectural expression.
h) Appropriate architectural elements, shading devices, projections, and other design measures shall be explored to provide protection from harsh weather conditions, including excessive solar exposure and rain, while enhancing the overall scale, proportions, grandeur, and visual character of the building. Detailed skin sections shall also be submitted to clearly illustrate the façade treatment, including material specifications and provisions for weather protection.
i) The respective plans indicate the provision of exhaust air shafts and DG exhaust shafts; however, these have not been adequately detailed or reflected in the proposed façade and other relevant drawings. The revised submission shall clearly incorporate and coordinate these service elements in the plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views, along with the necessary detailing and screening arrangements, to assess their impact on the overall architectural expression of the building.
j) It was observed that double-stack parking arrangements have been proposed in the basements to meet the requisite parking requirements of the site. However, back-to-back double-stack parking arrangements have been indicated, and their operational feasibility and functioning are not clearly understood from the submitted drawings. The same shall be appropriately detailed and elucidated, including the mechanism of operation, access, and vehicular circulation.
Further, structural columns have been shown within the vehicular circulation paths and between parking spaces, which may adversely affect vehicular movement and the usability of the parking bays. The basement planning shall therefore be revisited and rationalised, and revised, workable basement plans clearly demonstrating efficient vehicular circulation and functional parking arrangements shall be submitted for the consideration of the Commission.
k) The Commission observed from the submitted proposal that the structural arrangements have not been adequately coordinated with the architectural and functional planning. Several structural columns appear to intrude into vehicular circulation paths in the basements and affect the functional planning of spaces such as banquet halls, lobby areas, and kitchens. The Architect shall revisit and rationalise the structural scheme in coordination with the architectural planning to ensure the efficient functioning, usability, and workability of the spaces proposed for their intended use.
l) Functional furniture layouts for typical areas, including banquet halls and restaurants, shall be submitted to demonstrate the efficiency, usability, and operational functionality of the proposed spaces. The drawings shall clearly indicate the furniture arrangement, seating capacity, circulation, access, and space utilisation, along with the relevant service provisions, to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the design scheme by the Commission.
m) A combined mobility circulation plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plans from outside to the various buildings is to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site better. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement.
n) The proposal envisages restaurant and banquet facilities; however, their seating capacities and associated service infrastructure have not been adequately indicated. Considering the scale of the development and the likely generation of food, wet, dry, and other solid waste, the Architect shall submit a Solid Waste Management (SWM) Plan, clearly indicating provisions for its location in the site, waste segregation, collection, storage, and disposal in accordance with the applicable statutory guidelines.
Similarly, large kitchen areas have been envisaged; however, the submission does not adequately demonstrate their service planning and operational requirements. Necessary provisions relating to utilities and services, storage facilities, loading and unloading of goods, and the service arrangements for the restaurants, banquet facilities, and other associated areas have not been clearly indicated. The overall planning of these areas shall be revisited and detailed to demonstrate their workability, operational efficiency, and functional integration with the proposed facilities, for a comprehensive understanding and assessment by the Commission.
o) The vehicular ramp providing access to the basement has not been shown with a top cover. If a covering is proposed at a later stage, the revised submission shall include complete details of the proposed ramp covering, including its material specifications, structural support, drainage arrangements, and provisions for maintenance, duly coordinated with the relevant plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views.
p) The Commission observed that the main entrance gate and boundary wall establish the first point of visual interaction with the development and significantly influence its architectural character. The Architect shall submit a comprehensive design proposal for the main gate and boundary wall, including plans, elevations, sections, material specifications, grill details, lighting, signage (if any), and other relevant architectural details, to clearly explain the design intent and demonstrate their integration with the overall architectural vocabulary of the project.
q) The submitted landscape proposal lacks sufficient clarity. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted at an appropriate scale, clearly indicating the hardscape and softscape areas, existing and proposed trees, species, plantation details, site levels, and other landscape elements (in terms of points nos. 6 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.
r) The submission lacks clarity on rainwater discharge provisions, including screening of the rainwater pipes. Detailed plans illustrating the placement of rainwater pipes in all the proposed balconies (within shafts) and their screening mechanisms should be provided to ensure they remain concealed and do not adversely affect the overall aesthetics.
s) The proposal pertains to a motel building where several utilities and services, including water tanks, solar panels, air-conditioning equipment, and other associated services, are likely to be located on the terraces. However, the terraces in the current submission have been shown largely blank, without indicating these essential service provisions.
Further, considering the extensive terrace areas, adequate provisions for the collection and disposal of surface rainwater runoff have not been clearly addressed. The exposed rainwater pipes, if not appropriately integrated into the design at this stage, may adversely affect the aesthetics of the proposed façade. The terrace planning shall therefore be comprehensively revisited, and a detailed coordinated terrace plan, clearly indicating the location and screening of all utilities and services, rainwater drainage arrangements, and other relevant details, shall be submitted for the consideration of the Commission.
t) It was observed that the submission is incomplete, as detailed drawings and documentation of certain site components, including the Swachh Bharat Public Toilet, guard room etc., have not been provided. The Architect shall submit complete details of all such components, including plans, elevations, sections, 3D views, and other relevant drawings of the Swachh Bharat Public Toilet, boundary walls, guard rooms, main gates, and associated site structures, to ensure a comprehensive and coordinated submission for the review of the Commission.
u) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, etc., should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of points nos. 10, 11, and 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.
v) The Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex shall ensure to be installed in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) and Memorandum dated October 07, 2025 available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. Any deviations in the artwork from the approved design must be submitted to the Commission for prior approval before the commencement of construction, to ensure compliance and facilitate final approval upon project completion.
w) The installation of clear-story solar panels on a well-designed structural frame, integrated with the building design, is suggested to ensure the effective utilisation of the space beneath, subject to feasibility as per building bye-laws. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and improves aesthetics. The sustainability features shall be as per Point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.
- Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage has discrepancies, and needs improvement. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.