BRE 336
PolyTechnic University of
Hong Kong
Development Control of
Buildings in Hong Kong
Ch. 4 Building Control
ecyY 2012 - 2013
Outline of Chapter 4
–
–
–
–
Safety
•
Structural & non-structural, fire, etc
•
Dangerous building, UBW, Minor Works, MBIS/MWIS
Health
•
Density and Development Intensity Control
Comfort
•
Natural Ventilation and Lighting
•
Indoor Air Quality
•
Car parking Space
Others
•
Barrier Free Access
•
Energy Efficiency
•
Performance Based Approach
Regulations and CoPs
Buildings Ordinance
Cap. 123
Statutory
Building Regulations e.g.
Administration,
Planning,
Construction
Practice Notes for Authorized
Persons & Registered
Structural Engineers (PNAPs)
Codes of Practice
e.g. Means of escape in case
of fire, fire-resisting
construction
Non-statutory
(issued by
Building Authority)
Design Manuals
e.g. Barrier Free Access
How to control building works?
• Registration and pre-qualified AP/RSE and contractors
(BO, s.3-13)
• Prescriptive or performance-based requirements of
– Planning
– Design
– Construction
•
•
•
•
•
Vetting and approval of building plans (BO, s.14-17)
Consent of commencement of works (BO, s.14-20)
Issuance of occupation permits (BO, s.21)
Monitoring of site works (BO, s.22)
Authority to cease works, demolish or alter works (BO,
s.23-24)
How to control buildings?
(cont
(cont’’d)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Approval of building works (BO, s.14)
Approval for change of use (BO, s.25)
Powers of exemption (BO, s.41-42)
Authority in controlling dangerous and dilapidated buildings (BO,
s.26-28)
Registration of AP, Contractors, Inspectors, ...
Site Safety Supervision (SSSP)
Regulating Minor Works (B(MW)R)
Mandatory Building Inspections (MBIS/MWIS)
•
By other authorities
–
–
–
–
–
Licensing of premises
Certification of electricians, …
Periodic inspections of lifts, electricity and fire installations
Water supply
…
4.1 Safety
• Structural & Non-Structural, Fire:
–
–
–
–
Design requirements (BCR, CoP (UoS), CoP (UoC), CoP (FS),...);
Materials (BCR, CoP (UoS), CoP (UoC), CoP(FS));
Tests (BCR, CoP(FS));
Inspection and Maintenance.
• Other facilities:
– Lifts and Escalators (CoP (L&E));
– Others (caisson, cavern, etc).
• Minor Works Regulations & UBWs control
• MBIS/MWIS
• Dangerous buildings
s.17 Buildings Ordinance
•
S.17 Conditions may be
imposed
Column A
Column B
The
structural
use of
materials
Require and prescribe conditions fora. Maximum loads and stresses;
b. Tests of materials
c. The use of materials;
d. Instrumentation for checking design
assumptions and monitoring the effect of the
works;
e. Standards of workmanship;
f.
Qualified supervision;
Building (Construction)
Regulations
– S.4: Appropriate limitations not to be exceeded
• The structure shall be capable of safely sustaining and
transmitting to the ground the combined dead loads, imposed
loads and wind loads.
• Not to cause any deflection, deformation or other movements,
which would impair the stability of, or cause damage to, the
whole or any part of that building.
• Not to exceed the appropriate limitations of design stresses
– s.5: Method of design
• Shall comply with the laws of mechanics and recognized
engineering principles.
Dangerous Buildings
• Section 26 of the Buildings Ordinance provides that
– “Where in the opinion of the Building Authority any building has
been rendered dangerous or liable to become dangerous by …
dilapidation, … the Building Authority may by order in writing
served on the owner declare such building to be dangerous or
liable to become dangerous.”
• Until 1992, Section 26A of the Buildings Ordinance was
enacted to cover “dilapidated or defective buildings”.
The new provision is:
– “Where, on inspection, the Building Authority finds any
dilapidation or defect in a building he may by order in writing
served on the owner of such building require such works as may
be specified in the order to be carried out.”
Existing Buildings
• No statutory requirements of
– Maintenance
– Prevention
– Management
– Repair (unless dangerous or dilapidated)
• Just enacted requirements on
– Minor Works (B(MW)R)
– Building Inspection (MBIS/MWIS)
What are exempted from BO?
• s.41 Exemptions
– (1) The following shall be exempt from the provisions
of this [Buildings] Ordinance • (a) buildings belonging to the Government;
• (aa) subject to s.18(2) and (3) of the Housing Ordinance,
buildings upon any land vested in the Housing Authority or
over which the HA has control and management;
• (b) ...
– (3) [Exempted Works (see next slide)] ...“
• Buildings in the New Territories?
– Buildings Ordinance (Application to the New
Territories) Ordinance (Cap. 121).
Exempted Works
building works
• ss. 41(3) [before 2008]: "building
other than drainage works, ground
investigation in the scheduled areas or site
formation works not involving the
structure of any building may be carried
out in any building without application to or
approval from the Building Authority:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section
shall permit any building works to be
carried out in contravention of any
regulations
regulations." [emphasis added]
What are building works?
• B.O. s.2, Building Works include:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Building construction
Site formation works
Ground investigation in the scheduled areas
Foundation works
Repairs
Demolition
Alteration and addition
Building operation
Drainage works
What is involving the structure
of any building? (Question)
• A building work involving the structure of a
building is:
– (A) Works on the structural members themselves?
Such as on columns and beams?
– (B) Works affecting the structure adversely?
– (C) Works substantially affecting the loading of the
structure?
– (D) Works connected to the structural members? E.g.
bolting a sign to the column?
Court Cases on UBWs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Silver Pioneer International Ltd v Good Onwards Company Ltd (2004)
HCMP 4807/2003,
Dei Chuen Ho Industrial Ltd v Leung Yin Por and Anor [1993] 2 HKC
495/1993, HCMP 303/1993
HKSAR v. Joy Express Ltd [2003] HKCFI 215; HCMA5/2003,
HKSAR v. Joy Express Ltd (2005) HCMA706/2004,
Wong Sui Fung and Sham Pui Kuen v Yip Siu Keung (2001) LDBM
248/2000 [Greenland Villas case],
Good Think Consultants Ltd v. AG and Anor [1996] 4 HKC 782, 1994
MP 810/1996
R. v. New Best Restaurant (1996) HCMA 448/1996
Mariner International Hotels Ltd. and Sino Land Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Ltd.
and Hang Lung Group Ltd. (2007) FACV 3/2006,
Chong Ping v Hung Ling Yuen [2000] 1 HKLRD A17
Fairview was Sun Wai Chun v. Fairview Park Property Management Ltd
(2000) FAMV 1/2000
What is NOT an UBW?
•
•
•
•
All authorized BW (ABW)?
Exemptions and Exempted works (EW)?
Non-UBWs?
Unascertainable cases?
• Non-UBWs:
– Incompliance with BO other than s.14(1)
– Minor works since 2008
Victory Mark case
• Luk Kwan Hung Nelson v. Victory Mark Investment
Limited case (HCA 8530/1999)
• An unrectifiable defect of insufficient storey height
(<2.3m) was found in a newly completed building,
• A contravention to s.24(1) of B(P)R.
• "...a contravention of the Regulations does not result in
an offence, the works carried out in contravention of the
same are not illegal or unauthorized works." (p.14)
• Did the AP know about it?
• “Prior to the OP application was fully informed of the
situation”
• What did the BA do on it?
• "the BA in the BCII meeting decided to tolerate the
deficiency”
Unascertainable Cases
• (a) buildings governed under the Buildings (Application
to the New Territories) Ordinance
• (b) pre-war buildings (buildings built before 1945)
• (c) buildings with their approved plans lost!
• (d) unascertainable from the building plans
• (e) works approved illegally
• (f) illegal building works authorized by the court
• (g) illegal building works in the NT tolerated by amnesty
letter. For example BA v. BAT and Siu Kwok Wah case
elaborated that all UBWs in the NT built before
27/2/1975 have been tolerated by an amnesty letter
issued by the District Office.
• …
Albert House case
• Lily Tse Lai Yin & Ano v I.O. of
Albert Hse & Ano (1997) HCPI
828/1997
• A canopy built in 1973 and was
collapsed on 1/8/94
• One of the major reasons of the
collapse: UBWs (fish tanks) on the
canopy
• Who paid the $33M compensation?
• Co-owners who do not go bankrupt
Who bears the responsibility?
• Tenant or Owner (bona fide)?
– See Kwok Wing House case
– See also B(A)O 2008
• Contractor or Employer (bona
fide)?
– See New Best Restaurant case
• An UBW crosses over 2 buildings?
– 大角咀「凱旋門」
• An UBW on government land (i.e.
no owner)?
– 非法佔用官地
大角咀「凱旋門」
Minor Works
•
•
•
•
•
•
Buildings (Amendment) Ordinance 2008 Gazetted on 27 June
2008;
not yet been implemented, pending subsidiary regulations;
Class I includes those relatively more complicated minor works,
e.g. internal staircases connecting two floors, repair of columns or
load bearing walls and removal of large-scale illegal roof-top
structures.
Class II comprises those of a comparatively lower complexity
and risk to safety, e.g. repair of non-load bearing external walls,
installation or repair of external rendering or external wall tiles and
erection of medium-size projecting signboards.
Class III mainly includes common household minor works, e.g.
supporting frames for air-conditioners, drying racks and window
canopies."
Amended s.41(1) in B(A)O
•
"Building works (other than drainage works, ground investigation in
the scheduled areas, site formation works or minor works) in any
building are exempt from s.4, 9, 9AA, 14(1) and 21 if the works do
not involve the structure of the building."
•
•
And s.3B, 3C and 3D are added as follows:
(3B) Designated exempted works that are prescribed in the
regulations are exempt from s.4, 9, 9AA, 14(1) and 21.
(3C) Drainage works (other than minor works) in any building are
exempt from s.4, 9, 14(1) if the works do not involve -....
(3D) Nothing in s(3), (3B) and (3C) permits any building works or
drainage works to be carried out in contravention of any
regulations."
•
•
s.4 (AP/RSE), s.9 (RC), s.9AA (Prescribed RC) and s.21 (OP).
4-tier Control System
• There are now 4 types of authorized building
works:
–
–
–
–
(1) s.14 major works - approval and consent;
(2) s.38(ka-kf) minor works;
(3) s.41(3B) designated exempted works; and
(4) s.41(3) exempted works.
• S.14 does not apply to minor works!
• Then can minor works be approved
retrospectively?
One Building Two Systems
•
•
•
•
A/C frame A
Erect before 2008
UBW
Must be demolished!
• UBW can be
ascertained by
checking the
approved plan
•
•
•
•
A/C frame B
Erect after 2008
Minor Works
Approved
retrospectively?
• UBW cannot be
ascertained
• How can one know
the date of erection?
4.2 Health
• Density, space, NL&V, plumbing &
drainage, environment:
– Development intensity (ss.19-23 of BPR);
– Open space (ss.25, 28 of BPR);
– Natural lighting and ventilation (ss.29-37 of BPR);
– Plumbing, sanitary fitments, and drainage
(Building (Standards of Sanitary Fitments, Plumbing, Drainage Works
and Latrines) Regulations); and
– Congruity (s.16(1)(g) of BO).
History of the current development
intensity control system
• 1955: enactment of the Buildings Ordinance, Chapter
123,
• 1956: introduction of the Building (Planning)
Regulations, which dealt (among other things) with
the control of intensity of development by reference
to volume, height, and permissible street widths;
• 1962: introduction of the concepts of site coverage
and plot ratio as more sophisticated controls over
intensity of development.
Volume
control
1962
Plot ratio
control
What is the current development
intensity control by BO?
• S.19-23 Building (Planning) Regulations (BPR);
• By Plot Ratio (pr) and Site Coverage (sc)
• Schedule 1 of BPR:
– Determine the building height and use first;
– Determine the site classification by how many
streets abutting the site;
– Determine pr and sc in the Schedule 1; and
– Determine any exemptions, concessions, bonuses.
Domestic buildings
Percentage site
coverage
Ht
Class
A
site
B
Non-domestic buildings
Percentage site
coverage
Plot ratio
C
Class
A
site
B
C
Class
A
site
Plot ratio
B
C
Class
A
site
B
C
<= 15 m
66.6
75
80
3.3
3.75
4.0
100
100
100
5
5
5
>15 m <=18
m
60
67
72
3.6
4.0
4.3
97.5
97.5
97.5
5.8
5.8
5.8
>55 m <= 6
1m
34
38
41
6.8
7.6
8.0
60
62.5
65
12.2
12.5
13.0
33.33
37.5
40
8.0
9.0
10.0
60
62.5
65
15
15
15
....
Over 61 m
What is Plot Ratio?
•
•
•
Maximum permissible gross floor area = site area
x designated plot ratio;
i.e. gfa = sa x pr;
Nothing to do with remaining
Example:
plot ratio?
– if a site of area 1,000sm;
– Abutting 3 streets (wider than 4.5m each)
– i.e. a Class C site;
– Domestic use;
– Building height is chosen to be 62m;
– Then max plot ratio given in Schedule 1 is 10.0;
– Max site coverage is 40%;
• Max gfa = 1,000 x 10 = 10,000 sm.
• 25 storey x 400sm@ = 10,000 sm.
• Covered area = 400sm (40% sa).
Each floor
area =
400sm
25storey
Site area =
1,000sm
pr = 10, sc =
40%
What is the current development
intensity control by BO? (2)
• S.19-23 Building (Planning) Regulations (BPR);
• By Plot Ratio (pr) and Site Coverage (sc)
• Schedule 1 of BPR:
– Determine the building height and use first;
– Determine the site classification by how many
streets abutting the site;
– Determine pr and sc in the Schedule 1; and
– Determine any exemptions, concessions, bonuses.
• A Salient Point: any remaining gfa in the specific
site?
Remaining GFA
• 3 Big Question Marks:
– What is remaining gfa?
– Why there are remaining gfa?
– Who owns the remaining gfa?
Q1 What is remaining gfa?
1. Under s.21 of Building (Planning)
Regulations (and Schedule 1);
2. Development intensity is controlled by
plot ratio, among others.
3. When the maximum permitted plot ratio
is not fully utilized, the remaining plot
ratio multiplies with the site area is the
remaining gfa developable in the future.
Q2 Why are there remaining gfa?
1. Demolition of existing buildings;
2. Residual (Not used up in the original development);
3. Change of use / site classification / change of
control mechanism;
4. New exemptions release originally developed-gfa to
become unused-gfa; and
5. Others ….
Q3 Who owns the remaining gfa?
1. No-one knows;
2. Government response: she does not know what is
remaining gfa.
3. Can DMC clearly define? – whether it runs with the
land, see s.41 CPO;
4. Can Assignment clearly state? – it affects the
multiple ownership by undivided share approach,
and it allows plot ratio transfer;
5. I suggest: all existing owners own it pro-rata to their
undivided shares.
I. Remaining gfa due demolition
and residual
• Mei Foo Sun
Chuen Stage 9?
• Stage 8 MFSC
• NKML 25
• Was an oil depot
• Redeveloped in
1985
• With Conditions of
Exchange in 1971
• Premium $21k
Site Area : 183, 480 sf
MFSC: Plot Ratio Calculations
• gfa = site area x
plot ratio
• Site area =
183,480 sf
• Included the
remaining LPG
tank (hidden
line)
MFSC: Remaining Plot Ratio
Calculations
Site Area
Original developed non-domestic GFA
minus GFA of the demolished LPG Plant
Actual non-domestic GFA
Actual plot ratio for non-domestic part
Permitted plot ratio for non-domestic
Original developed domestic GFA
Original developed plot ratio for domestic part
Permitted plot ratio if all domestic
183,480 sf
66,957.38 sf
6,672.37 sf
60,285.01 sf
0.3286 = Actual GFA/Site Area
12.5
1,170,197 sf
6.3778
7.6Class B
Permitted plot ratio for domestic part
7.4002 >
Remaining plot ratio for domestic part
1.0224
Remaining GFA for domestic development
sf
187,597.71
187,597.71sf
Ht < 61m
6.37779
MFSC: Remaining Plot Ratio
Calculations (if excl. LPG plant)
Site Area
Original developed non-domestic GFA
176,808 sf
60,285.01 sf
Actual non-domestic GFA
60,285.01 sf
= Actual GFA/Site
0.3410 Area
12.5
1,170,197 sf
Actual plot ratio for non-domestic part
Permitted plot ratio for non-domestic
Original developed domestic GFA
Original developed plot ratio for domestic part
Permitted plot ratio if all domestic
Permitted plot ratio for domestic part
6.6185
7.6Class B
7.3927 >
Remaining plot ratio for domestic part
0.7742
Remaining GFA for domestic development
Difference
Ht < 61m
6.618476
136,887.70 sf
50,710.01 sf
Rpr=0.287
MFSC: Sub-division of Land Lot
• MFSC Stage 8 on RP
of s.A of NKML 25;
• LPG plant on NKML
25 RP;
• A strip as s.A of
NKML 25;
• A strip as s.B of
NKML 25.
• They are separately
owned.
MFSC: the crux of the Remaining pr
• In plot ratio calculations, all the 4 lots are
combined as one site area;
• But in DMC and land sales, the 4 lots are
separately owned;
• When there are some remaining gfa in the plot
ratio calculations, which owner of the 4 lots
owns them?
Who owns the
strawberry?
Is MFSC the only victim? Riviera
Garden case
• "已落成17至19年的荃灣海濱花園，由於地皮的可建樓面
未用盡，發展商新世界（0017）最近向屋宇署，申請於商
場海濱廣場的位置，於現有建築物之上興建1幢24層高商
場連商廈，並會於現有建築物作出改動及加建。
• 根據屋宇署批出圖則，計及現有商場等，新商廈總數面達
24
24層商場連商廈 (明
到24萬方呎。“ 新世界海濱廣場可加建24
報) 05月 23日
• BD's record confirms that the application of increasing 25,000
sm gfa by a 24-storey building in Riviera Garden has been
approved, although works has not been commenced (for
more than 2-year now). i.e. The approval may already lap the
2-year period.
Is MFSC the only victim? TKS case
• 2003年，太古將太古城 屋苑內約5萬方呎休
憩用地及高球場（規劃作住宅/商業用途）的
地積比率，併入萬邦工廈的重建計劃，令地
盤面積增大約1倍，商廈樓面由原先81.7萬
呎，可免補地價急增至155萬呎，建成一幢70
層高的商業「巨無霸」，也即明年初落成、
全港第八高的「港島東中心」，若以現時市
值推算，該物業增值達80億至100億元。" 可
3萬呎 發展商料多賺7
7億 (明報) 11月
建樓面增3
16日
• A plot ratio transferred from the remaining plot
rato of Taikoo Shing to the Island East.
Can Plot Ratio be Transferred?
• MFSC case is in principle a plot ratio transfer case;
• There have been some plot ratio transfer case, including:
•
•
•
•
•
Dedication and Surrender (to public use);
Central Reclamation;
Heritage Preservation;
Cinat case;
Others.
• “The existing framework of density control under the Buildings
Ordinance and the statutory town plans does not allow any
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) to apply across sites that are
not contiguous.
• At present, ‘transfer’ of development rights or permissible gross
floor area (GFA) is only allowed between different parts of the
same development site. This method should actually be more
accurately referred to as clustering of GFA, rather than transfer of
GFA.” (John Tsang)
Can Plot Ratio be Transferred?
• Dedication and Surrender (to public use)
• So called Bonus GFA;
• stipulated in s.22 of the Building
(Planning) Regulation.
• If the dedication of set-back area for
public passage or surrender of land for
road widening at ground level is
consented/acquired by the Government,
• bonus GFA that equals to five times the
area surrendered/dedicated or less than
20% of the permissible plot ratio,
whichever is the less, may be granted in
return for the private area
surrendered/dedicated to the public.
• HSBC ground floor concourse.
Can Plot Ratio be Transferred?
• 地產界：兩地價相若
• (星島)2009年8月18日 星期二 05:30
• 中環 國金二期對出地皮，將限制可建
四至五層高的商業建築物，而未用盡的
地積比則可轉移至金鐘中信大廈以北的
用地，有地產業人士指出，此舉既可保
障核心區商業樓面的供應量，亦可解決
臨海地段物業高度及密度過高的問題。
由於金鐘用地鄰近日後添馬艦政府總
部，亦近港鐵出口，料兩者地價相若。
• Remaining plot ratio in Central is
transferred to Admiralty, to control
building height in the Central Promenade.
Can Plot Ratio be Transferred?
• Transfer of Development Rights for the
Preservation of Historical Buildings in
Hong Kong
• By the Secretary for Planning and Lands,
Mr John C Tsang, at the annual general
meeting of the Hong Kong Institute of
Architects on December 18, 2001
• “Under such a TDR scheme, historical
buildings may be declared as
monuments, and become eligible
‘sending sites’”.
CINAT case
• Cinat Co. Ltd. v AG, PC Appeal No. 31/1994, [1995] 1 HKLR
128, from CACV000131/1993 and HCMP003876/1992
• At no. 121 King's Road, North Point, there is a triangular piece
of land (IL no. 2273 S.A. and R.P.) was reserved by the
Government for MTR station.
• The then owner had agreed to dedicate the triangular site for
public purpose.
• In return, the triangular site area had been counted in the
calculation of bonus site coverage and bonus plot ratio for the
development of Carson Mansion in the adjacent site, in
accordance with s.23(2)(b) Building (Planning) Regulations.
• Unfortunately, the Deed of Dedication was not signed by the
Government when the original public purpose was no longer
required.
CINAT case
• Q1: Is there any development potential of the subject
site?
• Interestingly, the appellant paid $12m to buy the
triangular site and made application for a
development of 36-storey commercial buildings. The
BA rejected the application by stating that "...the
permissible plot ratio and site coverage ... have been
almost fully utilised."
CINAT case
• Q2: How can one know whether the gfa of a site
has been used up?
• A very crucial implication of the Cinat case is that a
professional land administration advisor shall
• "enquire from the Buildings Authority whether a
piece of land in question had been used for the
purpose of calculating the site coverage and plot
ratio" of any other buildings. (Cinat Co. Ltd. v AG,
1993, p.7)
• However, I think very very few practitioners have
ever enquired BA on this issue.
• The question is "How can one know whether a
piece of land had been used up its permissible plot
ratio and site coverage or not?", yet without
checking it up may result in professional negligence!
CINAT case
• Q3: no government or professional institutions who
are looking into this issue even after the following
clear message from the Privy Council has been
voiced out.
– Per curiam
– "It is perhaps unfortunate that there is no public register in
Hong Kong such as would enable potential purchasers of
vacant land to ascertain whether or not its development
potential has been used up as has happened in the
present case." (p.131)
Lot No.
Site in gfa calc.
IL no. 2273 S.A. & R.P. IL no. 2273 S.B.
Remaining gfa (sm) Owner of the rpr
0
NA
Other TDR cases
• Heritage Preservation:
– Tai Fu Tai (大夫第)
– Kom Tong Hall (甘棠第)
– Ohel Leah Synagogue
– Wo Cheong Pawn Shop
• Letter A/B (新界土地權益
書甲類│乙類)
• Paliburg Plaza -> Regal
Hotel by restrictive
covenant
Classification of Site
• Before 2005:
– A site abuts only one street is a Class A site;
– A corner site (abuts 2 corner streets) is a Class B
site;
– A site abuts more than 2 streets is a Class C site.
• After 2005:
– Street becomes Specified Street
MFSC: Specified Street?
• In a BD reply to the resident, it
clearly states that the EVA to
the LCK park is vested in the
Leisure and Cultural Services
Department, which cannot be
regarded as a Specified Street,
according to s.18A(3)(a)(i) of
BPR
• So, it can at best be a Class A
site.
MFSC: Why the Strip is a Street ?
• The judge said, "although the paved areas
within the Site have all the physical
characteristics of a street, the question which
we must address in determining whether or
not those areas should be excluded from the
calculations of site area for the purposes of
Regulation 23(2)(a) is whether or not they are
within the (realistic) 'control' of the Appellant
[the developer
developer]."
MFSC: Why the Strip is a Street ?
• "because if the owner is able to exercise
control over the area of land in question it
would always be open to him to prepare his
plan on the basis that the building proposed
would in fact be erected on part or all of the
said land." (Mayo J in Wedearn case)
• i.e. the street may be extinguished -> it is not
a street.
MFSC: How to determine realistic
control?
• This case sets out the test for (realistic)
'control' as follows:
• The test of (realistic) 'control' for the purposes
of Reg.23(2)(a), is whether there has been
dedication of the land to the public or
whether third party rights of passage exist
over that land must be determinative.
MFSC: How to determine realistic
control?
• In this Mei Foo Stage 8 case, since there is
neither dedication to the public nor third
party rights of passage exist over the land, the
court therefore upheld the Building Appeal
Tribunal's findings that the subject strip is
NOT a 'street'.
• Interestingly, there is second party (housing
flats owners) rights of passage exist, not third
party rights.
MFSC: What is a Street?
• The judge upheld the argument that "aa
'street' for the purposes of Reg. 2(1) lay
outside of a site while a 'street for
Reg.23(2)(a) fell within a site
site."
• i.e. the word 'street' in the same piece of
legislation has two different meanings, which
are not explicitly stated.
MFSC: What is a Street?
• Reg.2(1) is a definition section where the
word 'street' is defined as footpath and
private and public street.
• Where Reg.23(2)(a) takes a street into
account in determining the maximum
permissible development intensity of a site.
• Reasonable men and women would regard
Reg. 2(1) as a glossary for all the terms to be
referred in the whole Regulation.
MFSC: What is a Street?
• But now the two appearance of the word 'street' got
different meanings and tests.
• "that in determining a street for the purposes of
Reg.23(2), 3rd party rights must be determinative;
• However, in determining a street for other purposes
under the Regulations, 3rd party rights are not
determinative, although they may perhaps be relevant,
and the standard method of determination applies;
that is, by looking to physical characteristics, use and
any other factor that may, in the circumstances of the
case, be appropriate."
NL&V
•
S.25 BPR
– An open space is required in dom bldgs for NL&V
– ¼ - ½ roofed over area.
•
S.30 BPR
– Aggregated superficial area of glass (85% of gross area) = 1/10 room area
– Openable area = 1/16 room area
•
S.31 BPR
– Minimum requirements of window (Prescribed Window)
– PNAP 241 max 15-degree (APP 113
http://www.bd.gov.hk/english/documents/pnap/APP/APP113.pdf)
•
S.32 BPR
– Maximum 9m deep from prescribed window
•
S.35A BPR
– Air inlet for gas water heater
– PNAP 82 (APP 27
http://www.bd.gov.hk/english/documents/pnap/APP/APP027.pdf )
NL&V (Cont'd)
•
•
•
•
S.36 BPR
– Toilet windows
– PNAP 219 (APP 98
http://www.bd.gov.hk/english/documents/pnap/APP/APP098.pdf )
S.37 BPR
– Light and air (of other buildings) NOT to be diminished
S.40 BPR
– NL&V to staircase
– PNAP 169 (APP 65
http://www.bd.gov.hk/english/documents/pnap/APP/APP065.pdf )
PNAP 53 (APP 13
http://www.bd.gov.hk/english/documents/pnap/APP/APP013.pdf )
– Submission of Schedule of Building Materials and Products
• CoP (OTTV)
• B(EE)R
Larvatto Case
• S.30 of BPR: Provision of openable
windows:
– 1/16 room area,
– max. 9m deep,
– prescribed windows.
• The Larvatto case
– Curtain wall façade (east facing for
noise reduction): openable 1/100 room
area
– Very big room to achieve 1/16
openable window area
– Partitioning may violate the
requirements.
Performance Based Approach
•
•
•
•
PNAP 278 PBA on NL&V
Vertical Daylight Factor (VDF)
Air Change per Hour (ACH)
http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/ecyyiu/article?mid=2054
Rm
VDF
ACH
Habitable room 8%
1.5 (natural)
Kitchen
1.5 (natural) +
5 (mech)
4%
Indoor Air Quality
• No building control on IAQ;
• The current IAQ for office is a IAQ Objectives
issued by EPD http://www.iaq.gov.hk/tables.html
• Alarming situation of Hong Kong:
http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/ecyyiu/article?mid=5
562
• http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/ecyyiu/article?mid=4
137
• Natural ventilation (openable windows)
requirement is the only control.
Items exempted from GFA
calculations
• New Policy:
– GFA concession cap 10% (PNAP)
– Special GFA exemptions by HKBEAM
• Existing Policy:
– Exempted GFA (BO s.42(1), eg: gree features,
– Disregarded GFA (BPR s.23(3)(b) & 23A(3),
eg: Carparks)
– Bonus GFA (BPR s.22 and BA's discretion)
– http://blog.yahoo.com/ecyyiuu/articles/84613
Provision of carparking space
• LAO 4/2006
• http://www.landsd.gov.hk/en/images/doc/2006-4e.pdf?
• Res parking space: follow the Planning Standards and
Guidelines
• Flexibility to adjust the no. up of down by 10% or 5%+50,
whichever the less.
• Else, justified with design details, subject to the approval
of TD, and premium payable.
• A carparking provision schedule is required
• GFA calculation exempted
• Visitors parking spaces: if >75 units, 1-5 space for each
block
• Parking space for the Disabled: >=1 for every 200
spaces
Others
• Barrier Free Access
– Disability Discrimination Ordinance, Cap. 487
– BPR s.72
– Design Guide 2008
• Energy Efficiency of Building
– Building (Energy Efficiency) Regulations
– CoP (OTTV)
– Buildings Energy Efficiency Ordinance, Cap. 610 ( in
operation from 21 Sep 2012 )
– Building Energy Codes (EMSD)
– Energy Audit
Performance Based Building
Control
• Engineering Approach in Fire Safety design is accepted
since 1996
• Performance based NL&V design is accepted since
PNAP 278
• More and more performance based design would be
allowed in the future
• But in A&A works of these PB designed buildings, a resimulation shall be required to re-assess the impacts of
the A&A works, it would be very costly for maintance
• see Yiu, C.Y. (2008) The Emergence of a PerformanceBased Building Control System, in Chan,Edwin and Yiu,
C.Y. (Eds), Contracting and Regulatory Innovations in
Building and Real Estate, PACE Publishing, Hong Kong,
pp. 95-104.