CSE566 Statutory Framework for Construction Practice Ir Dr Eddie Lam

Tutorial 3

1. On 7th December 1992, plans for the development of the site were first submitted by the
Applicant’s architect to the Authority for approval. The plans were not approved, and
the Applicant’s architect was notified of the refusal of approval on 5th February 1993.

2. A second set of plans (with the intention to rectify the objections raised by the Authority
to the first set of plan) were then submitted to the Authority and were received by the
Authority on 11th March 1993. The Authority’s response to the second set of plans was
contained in a certificate of approval sent to the Applicant’s architect dated 14th April
1993.

3. The letter enclosing the certificate said that the plans were acceptable “subject to no
adverse comment from the District Planning Officer”. The District Planning Officer
advised that the second set of plans contravened the relevant Outline Zoning Plan then
in force. On 12th May 1993, the Authority informed the Applicant’s Architect regarding
the advice received from the District Planning Officer.

4. On 26th May 1993, the Applicant’s Architect applied to the Town Planning Board for
planning permission, and the permission was refused.

5. By a letter dated 5th December 1994, the applicant submitted a third set of plans on 12th
December 1994. This was refused on 10th January 1995 on the ground that the plot ratios
in the plans exceeded the plot ratios in the relevant draft Outline Zoning Plan then in
force.

6. Leave to apply for Judicial Review was given on 10th July 1995.

7. Was the first set of plans deemed to be approved?

8. Was the second set of plans deemed to be approved? If so when was that?

9. Can one apply for consent pursuant to the deemed approval of the second set of plans?

10. Regarding the third set of plans, is the deemed approval provision applicable?

11. If the third set of plans was decided to be first considered, which will be the relevant
draft Outline Zoning Plan?

12. Case referred Wong Kwok Gee v The BA, HCMA963/1995.