- The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
- The layout plan of the school was approved on August 11, 1995, followed by the building plan approval on May 26, 1997. The Commission accepted the NOC for completion on April 23, 2002. However, the Commission did not accept the concept of the revised building plan proposal in its meeting held on May 22, 2025, and specific observations were given.
- The proposal revised layout and the building plans proposal now received for phase-wise demolition and reconstruction of the Senior Secondary School received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission. A detailed discussion was held with the architect who made a detailed presentation and provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission and the presentation made, the following observations are to be complied with:
a) The proposal is for phase-wise demolition and reconstruction of school building with proposed buildings with the following structures:
i. Senior school (basement+ ground with three floors)
ii. Junior school (basement+ ground with three floors)
iii. Multipurpose hall block- (basement +ground)
iv. Housing for principal and staff
b) The proforma filled by the architect mentions the same contact number for both the architect and the owner, thus, incorrect documentation is submitted. It shall be ensured that separate contact and address details are submitted for the architect and the owner to ensure correct documentation.
c) The architect mentioned, in proforma, the presence of a notified heritage building in the school complex which is incorrect. The heritage structure falls outside the school complex and will have development restrictions in some parts of the site. It shall be ensured to clearly mark the impact area of the heritage building in the site layout plan as a no-development/restricted development zone (based on the applicable regulations) to explain the site planning and zoning.
d) The submitted site plan shows provision of open surface parking at the rear edge of the site, whereas the 3d views show proposed open ground, thus inconsistency is seen in the submission. It shall be ensured to submit coordinated and updated drawings and 3d views to make the submission coherent.
e) It has been observed that a large percentage of parking, i.e. approx. 578 ECS has been proposed at the surface in open areas, which is discouraged by the Commission as it leads to environmental issues, including urban flooding, while also impacting the aesthetics of the built environment. Alternatively, it is suggested to maximise the basement footprint by including areas up to the building line between the two proposed academic blocks, thereby accommodating more parking at the basement level. Additionally, it is recommended to increase the basement height to accommodate double-stack parking, which will enable maximising parking provision in the basement, thereby freeing up the ground space for uses such as playgrounds and open fields for sports activities. The architect is advised to revise the parking plans and resubmit with a revised parking matrix that shows the bifurcation of parking provided in the open and basement areas for the Commission’s review.
f) The site plan shows a motorised road between the two academic blocks, which will conflict with the pedestrian movement of the users, primarily students, thereby impacting their safety and security. It shall be ensured that the central road is pedestrian-friendly, thereby segregating vehicular traffic to ensure a seamless pedestrian network and promoting the safety of users.
g) The drawings of the ground floor show toilets at the two edges of the block, wherein it is observed that they are accessed by a common corridor instead of direct entry, which appears to be an unsafe design option. It shall be ensured that the toilet design on all floors is such that boys’ and girls’ toilets are accessible directly from the corridor, i.e. they are not lockable together, while ensuring privacy and safety of the users. Also, light and ventilation for the toilet areas are to be ensured.
h) The plumbing shafts in the toilets of the housing block (including the principal’s residence) appear to be missing. It shall be ensured in all building blocks, including staff housing, that shafts be provided to conceal pipes, including soil, rainwater, etc., so that they do not mar the aesthetics of the façade. Additionally, outdoor air-conditioning units should be appropriately screened by design interventions, such as jaalis and louvres, to ensure the aesthetics of the built environment are maintained.
i) To explain the functioning of typical areas, including classrooms and housing blocks, typical furniture layout arrangements should be submitted to ensure functional clarity in the submission.
j) Details of railing in all blocks primarily academic blocks be such that minimum horizontal members are present, to ensure safety of the users i.e. students.
k) Complete details of Swachh Bharat toilet (as per applicable Unified building bye laws 2016), including location on site plan, detailed drawings, 3d views, along with materiality to be provided in the revised submission.
l) 3d views of all building blocks to be annotated with materiality details to make the design scheme self-explanatory. Additionally, 3D views showing the provision of solar panels at the terrace level, along with their screening mechanism, are to be included in the revised submission.
m) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations.
n) Installation of clear story Solar panels on well-designed structural frame integrated with the building design is suggested to ensure effective utilisation of the space beneath. Extending beyond the footprint will enable larger panel coverage, thereby enhancing generation capacity. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics.
o) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level, shall ensure to be installed in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.
p) The Sustainability features shall be as per point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.
q) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, 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.
- Overall, the proposal received at the conceptual stage lacks clarity, is incomplete, and has inconsistencies. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation and reply.