Session3 Part1 BDsummary

HKIA/ARB
Intensive CPD Seminar : Update on Local Practice Issues that Architects should Know on 17 Dec 2011
Summary of BD Issues in 2011
A Report from
Clement Chu & S S Yim

HKIA Representatives to LDAC Building Subcommittee
Tony Chan, Vincent Ng & Franklin Yu

HKIA representatives to APSEC
HKIA/ARB Intensive CPD Seminar : Update on Local Practice Issues that Architects should Know on 17 Dec 2011
1.0 Background
1.0 Background
1.1 BSC/APSEC
• HKIA representatives to BSC/APSEC
• Representing HKIA to meet with BD on bi-monthly
interval, chaired by the Director of Buildings
1.0 Background
1.2 BD Discussion Forum
• A bi-monthly gathering to meet with all the Area CBSs to
discuss on informal basis common problems encountered in
our day-to-day practice as AP. The Forum is chaired by
AD/NB1 (Mr Sam Ho). Representatives from HKIE & HKIS
also participate in the Forum.
• All HKIA members are welcome to forward relevant issues
for discussion and to attend the pre-forum meetings.
• Regular attendants/ contributors are invited to attend the
Forum.
1.0 Background
1.3 Updates and Reports to Members
• HKIA’s representatives to APSEC/BSC have been
communicating with HKIA members through summary of
discussions in these meetings/forums. These reports are
posted on the Buildings Committee’s webpage for members’
reference.
2.0 Major Issues in 2011


2.1 Measures to Foster a Quality and
Sustainable Built Environment
- The Feedback Forum
• A Discussion Forum with BD will be arranged around
February 2012 to exchange views on issues/problems
encountered with the new “measures” since it’s
implementation so far.
• Members are encouraged to forward relevant cases and

participate in the pre-forum meeting.

- Extent of Application
• BD confirmed that the new “measures” as stated in PNAP
APP-151 & 152 are not applicable if no GFA exemption is
applied for. The new “measures” are applicable only if any
ticked items in the list of GFA concessions in Appendix A
of PNAP APP-151 are applied for.
• BD has confirmed that A & A works not requiring submission
of BA13 do not need to follow the SBD guidelines.
• The new “measures” would be applicable if car park
concession is applied under B(P)R 23(3)(b).

- Site Coverage of Greenery Requirement
at Pedestrian Zone
• In Appendix E of PNAP APP-152, under the Site Coverage of
Greenery requirement at pedestrian zone, the width of
projecting peripheral planters is relaxed, provided there is a
clear vertical height of 8 times the width of planters.
• BD advised that all projecting planters, including planters in
the Tower portion, which comply with the relevant
requirements in PNAP APP-19 (Projection in relation to site
coverage and plot ratio) and other PNAPs, may be
considered to be exempted from GFA calculations.

- GFA and Site Coverage of Aboveground
Car Parks
• BD confirmed that, as per current practice, car parks are

considered non-domestic except for single family
houses.
• Covered L/UL on Ground floor, and open parking spaces,
even at an upper level, are 100% exemptible.

- Ramps in Logistic Centres
• BD advised that large diameter ramps in logistics centres
which provide direct access to the accommodations above
ground floor are GFA accountable as they are considered to
serve the same function as lifts for vertical transportation.
•
• L/UL at upper storeys above ground level and car parking
spaces aboveground were exemptible for 50%.

2.2 BD’s New Requirement on Proof of
Ownership & New Rules on 2 Year Validity
• Announcement merely by circular letter on 20.10.2010 : concern of
implementation of important policies via circular letter.
• HKIA responded via letters on 9.11.2010 and 21.3.2011.
• Problem of uncertainties of development,
• unforeseen circumstances such as vacant possession
• Reference to BO S39(2) which is based on superstructure consent.
• 100% ownership not favourable to small size development
- may result in eradication of small developers
• BD is making a list of criteria for granting of extension to the 2 year
period for projects with genuine difficulties. Response to HKIA is
apparently being upheld by Judicial Reviews launched by REDA
and some other developers on the two issues.

2.3 Top Hung Windows
BD reported that after consideration, the following criteria were

adopted :
• Operable extent to be 600mm clear (from bottom of sash to
window frame), or the height of the window.
• The requirements also apply to non-domestic buildings. BD
may further consider if there were new and strong arguments.
• The requirements only apply to buildings with first
superstructure consent obtained after 12.8.2011.

2.4 Information on Previous Rulings
• Upon continual request from HKIA, BD informed that they
would not directly disseminate court cases, judicial decisions,
etc. on buildings related matters.
• However, BD is considering if such court cases had
significant impact on buildings ordinance matter, they would
post in BD’s website the hyperlinks to the database of those
court cases.
3.0 New/Proposed Legislations in 2011


3.1 Minor Works Control System (MWCS)
• MWCS came into operation on 31 December 2010. There are
certain minor works which were previously exempted works
under the Buildings Ordinance that now required submission
for commencement and/or record upon completion by RC.
• For phased developments or buildings with OP recently issued
but not yet handed over, there might be a lot of minor works
not shown in the approved GBP because they were exempted
under the old system.
• BD also advised that the target response to drawings
submission under MWCS Class I works would be within 7 days
of submission. The audit would be within 28 days of application.

3.2 Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme
(MBIS) and Mandatory Window Inspection
Scheme (MWIS)
• The CoP is scheduled to be approved by the Legislative

Council within 2011.
• BD targets to implement the registration of Registered
Inspector on 30.12 as 1st stage. The Schemes are targeted
to commence at 2nd quarter of 2012.
• BD supplements that the MBIS would also include
Unauthorized Building Works (UBW), but the Inspector is only
required to report to BD if such UBW is observed.

3.3 Revamp of Building (Construction)
Regulations
• The amendment of B(C)R 17 regarding loading was

effective on 1 August 2011. BD explained that such
revisions should be considered as rationalization of
loading requirements, and not a reduction in requirements.
• For the application in A&A works, it would be considered on
a case by case basis.

3.4 Proposed Revisions to the ‘Building
(Standards of Sanitary Fitments,
Plumbing, Drainage Works and Latrines)
Regulations and Draft ‘Code of Practice
for the Provision of Sanitary Fitments,
Plumbing, Drainage Works and
Wastewater Treatment Facilities’
• The proposed amendment is to adjust the ratio of the male
to female users for calculating the sanitary fitment provisions
from 1:1 to 1: 1.5 for Shopping Arcades, Cinemas and
Places of Public Entertainment.

3.4 (cont.)
• Based on a commissioned consultancy study, the recommendation
to increase the provision of sanitary fitments for female was
promulgated in PNAP ADV-28 (former PNAP 297) issued in May
2005. Since then, the ratio was proposed to be revised from 1:1 to
1:1.25 in 2008 upon receipt of further appeals.
• Further appeals were received from the Legislative Councilors and
other women associations for a further review with a view to further
improving the sanitary fitment provisions for female users in
shopping arcades, places of public entertainment and cinemas.
According to BD, the ratio of 1:1.5 was proposed after a
comprehensive review, with reference to other overseas standards
including the British Standards on Sanitary Installations (BS 6465) as
well as the report published by the Census and Statistics Department
on "Hong Kong Population Projections 2010 - 2039" in July 2010.

3.5 Proposed Amendments to PNAP APP-37
on Curtain Wall, Window and Window
Wall Systems
• BD advised that they intend to step up the quality control of
tempered glass in view of frequently reported cases of
spontaneous breakage. In addition of the submission of a
RSE endorsed Quality Assurance Scheme, it was suggested
to enhance the requirement of supervision of heat soak test
in the factory by RSE/RC representatives. The RSE
representative (TCP T3) would be required to cover at
least 30% of the glass and the RC representative to cover
100%.

3.5 (Cont.)
• HKIA representatives opined that glass is a manufactured
product and heat soak test is part of the manufacturing process
but not a construction process, all responsibilities regarding
glass tempering and heat soak processes should rest with the
glass supplier and curtain wall/window contractor, and therefore
expressed great reservation on this new supervision requirement
due to its implied responsibility and the sheer impracticality,
especially for products manufactured overseas.
• BD is also considering revision to relax the impact load test
requirement for tempered glass acknowledging that the current
impact load test performance requirements are only applicable to
cases where there is a likelihood of a child running a distance
and then hit the glass. For current projects justifications may be
submitted on a case basis for relaxation of the requirement.

3.6 Draft Revised PNAP APP-2 (Calculation of
GFA and Non-accountable GFA)
In the draft PNAP, the following set of criteria for external cladding
exemptible from GFA/SC calculations was proposed:
• External wall finishes of nominal thickness or claddings with

overall thickness of not more than 90mm (75mm in the case
of cladding to non-structural prefabricated external walls) as
the external wall finishes may be disregarded for the purpose
of measurement of dimensions under Regulation 23(3) of the
B(P)R.
4.0 Clarifications of Legislations


4.1 150mm Level Drop for Non-green
(i.e.GFA Accountable) Balconies
• BD clarified that 150mm level drop was required for “green”
balconies and not for covered “non-green” balconies, and it
was still required for uncovered “non-green” balconies.

4.2 Peripheral Planters on Car Parking Floors
• For peripheral planters on car parking floors (both under cover

and projecting cases) that were exempted from GFA
calculations, BD ‘restricts’ their maximum width to be 500mm,
which, however, could not fulfill the requirements imposed by
other government departments for planting or greening
purposes.
• BD clarified that from the perspective of B(P)R 23(3)(a),
500mm wide planters may be exempted but larger dimensions
needed to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis in the BC.

4.3 Exemption of Communal Gardens and
Covered Landscaped and Play Areas on
Ground Level from GFA Calculations
• While communal gardens and covered landscaped and play
areas on the podium are exemptible from GFA calculations,
when those areas are at the ground or street level, they are
exemptible for some cases (usually in the NT) and not for
others.
• BD clarified that, subject to the decision in BC, the granting
of such exemption would be favourable if they are not
attached or adjacent to any commercial elements. BD also
reminded that MOE areas (e.g. escape routes through those
areas) could not be exempted.

4.4 Retractable Awnings
• Retractable awnings are not currently treated as building

works and accountable for GFA.
• BD stated that retractable awnings, which are sometimes
installed at podium roof, are not removable and are not
exempted from complying with the regulations, and,
therefore, they are accountable for GFA.

4.5 Thickness of Cladding on Prefabricated
External Walls
• The 150mm thickness of prefabricated external walls

exemptible from GFA and SC calculations could not cater
for cladding on the walls, especially stone cladding.
• BD, upon discussion agreed that a maximum thickness of
225mm, consisting of 150mm for structure and 75mm for
finishing/cladding, will be exemptible.

4.6 Top Rail for Glass Protective Barriers
• In PNAP APP-110, free-standing glass protective barriers

designed as “panic barriers” are required to have a top rail
attached to the glass in the prescribed manner, and
members requested BD to advise when such top rail was
required.
• BD clarified that such top rail is only required for public
areas, such as schools, shopping arcade. It is not
necessary for “private” areas like single family units and
houses etc., including balconies of each flat.

4.7 Protective Barrier for Internal Staircases
• In B(C)R 8 that protective barriers are required “at the outer

edge of all balconies, verandahs, staircases, landings or
projections, or where there is a difference in adjacent levels
greater than 600mm”.
• BD clarified that structural submissions would be necessary
only for barriers at proper floors, and such requirements
would not apply to internal railings along staircases unless
there was a level difference greater than 600mm.
• BD also clarified that 150mm kerbs are not required for
staircases or parts of staircases (e.g. small landings).

4.8 Waiving of Openable Window Requirement in
Rooms Containing Waste Fitments
• BD had accepted in some projects that the air change rate for
mechanical ventilation (in lieu of openable windows) of a room
containing only waste fitments to be reduced from 10 ACH to 6
ACH, on condition that the waste fitments discharged into a
separate stack independent from the soil stack.
• BD advised that they are prepared to consider each situation on a
case-by-case basis, with the prerequisite being separation of the
waste stack from the soil one. Possible scenario include :
- A hotel room with only a coffee sink in the room
- A sink in an unenclosed pantry of an office
- A room containing only a slop sink
- An art room in a school with only a wash basin
- A hospital ward/room with only a hand wash basin

4.9 Exhaust Pipes from Toilets Opening onto
Balconies
• The exhaust pipes for mechanical ventilation from enclosed

toilets could not discharge onto balconies in the revised JPN
No.1 issued on 31 January 2011.
• BD explained that exhausting onto balconies was
undesirable for people using the balconies and hence is not
allowed.

4.10 Reduction Factor for MOE Staircases
with U-turned Flights
• Per paragraph 15.6 of the MOE Code, reduction factor did

not apply to scissor staircases with an intermediate
landing between consecutive floors.
• BD confirmed that this was true regardless of the
configuration of the landing in relation to the flights of
stairs, e.g. scissor staircases with U-turned flights on the
same side of the intermediate landings.

4.11 Raised Floor Systems More Than
600mm High
• BD stated that since there would be a risk of falling, raised

floor systems higher than 600mm were required to be
fire-rated. If such height is required but the requisite fire
rating could not be achieved, e.g. in data centres,
modification could be applied for consideration on case-by
case basis.

4.12 Location of Drainage Channels outside
Internal Areas
• PNAP APP-125 allows the provision of additional drainage
channels and a fall on the flat roof or external ground adjoining
internal/usable floor area, instead of a 150mm level drop between
an internal floor and an external ground/flat roof, as required under
B(C)R 35 and 49(1). It is not stated clearly where the additional
channels should be located.
• An example is the entrance door to a residential lift lobby on the
covered podium floor where a large and deep canopy had
effectively shifted the external ground line away from the
opening/entrance.
• BD clarified that the locations of the required channels would
depend on the individual situations, but they were preferred to be
at the doors.

4.13 Dimensions of Pipe Ducts
• Paragraph 3(b) of PNAP APP-093 required that internal common
soil and waste stacks be housed in pipe ducts having access of
not less than 600mm x 2000mm. In case the width of a pipe duct
was smaller than 600mm, it would not be possible to have such an
access door.
• BD clarified that pipe ducts needed access doors for maintenance,
and hence required doors of 600mm minimum width and 700mm
space for maintenance in front.
• There is also query whether a pipe duct containing only a common
stack serving the drains from two balconies on the external wall
was considered an internal common pipe duct under the PNAP.
• BD advised that perforated casing for pipes on external walls was
not a pipe duct and the requirements in the PNAP are not
applicable.

4.14 Dimensions of Refuse Storage and
Material Recovery Room (RS & MRR)
• In the approval of GBP, the maximum dimensions of a

RS&MRR exemptible from GFA calculations were usually
1500x1500, which were considered too tight for putting in
all the required provisions.
• BD advised that the exemptible dimensions could be
flexibly considered. Some members remarked that to get
credits under BEAM Plus, a RS&MRR larger than
1500x1500 would be required.

4.15 Floor Numbering
• The allowable omission of floors was detailed in PNAP

ADV-3. However, while accepting the GBP, FSD would
remark that the omission of 4/F, 13/F, 14/F, etc. was
undesirable, which conflicts with said PNAP.
• BD advised that FSD had different considerations and
requested the concerned APs to convey FSD comments
to the developers. BD remarked that issuance of OP
would not be affected if the PNAP was followed.

4.16 Site Coverage for A&A Projects
• For some A&A projects involving the extension of void or

lift overrun from podium non-domestic floors to domestic
floors above, the allowable site coverage above the
podium might be slightly exceeded.
• BD advised that site coverage calculations should be
made. If the allowable figure was exceeded, an
application for modification could be submitted, and the
application would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

4.17 Ramps for Urinal in Toilets Used by
Ambulant Disabled Persons
• For toilets where a disabled toilet was provided on the
same floor, BD had required, in some cases, ramp access
to such urinal for “normal” toilets to cater for ambulant
disabled persons. Members queried the necessity for such
provision, as ambulant disabled persons did not use
wheelchairs.
• After round of discussions, BD finally confirmed that it is
not necessary to provide ramps for accessing urinals used
by persons with ambulant disabilities, and the
corresponding description in Figure 25 in BFA Design
Manual would be amended accordingly.

4.18 Dimensions of Wheelchair Maneuvering
Space in Disabled Toilets
• Clause 48 of the BFA Design Manual 2008 required a

1.5m x 1.5m wheelchair maneuvering space within a
disabled toilet but the diagram in Appendix B3 indicated a
1.5m turning circle only.
• BD clarified that a 1.5m x 1.5m space was required.
Thank You

Session3 Part1 BDsummary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Session3 Part1 BDsummary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HKIA/ARB

Summary of BD Issues in 2011

Clement Chu & S S Yim

Tony Chan, Vincent Ng & Franklin Yu

2.0 Major Issues in 2011

2.0 Major Issues in 2011

• Members are encouraged to forward relevant cases and

2.0 Major Issues in 2011

2.0 Major Issues in 2011

2.0 Major Issues in 2011

• BD confirmed that, as per current practice, car parks are

2.0 Major Issues in 2011

2.0 Major Issues in 2011

2.0 Major Issues in 2011

BD reported that after consideration, the following criteria were

2.0 Major Issues in 2011

3.0 New/Proposed Legislations in 2011

3.0 New/Proposed Legislations in 2011

3.0 New/Proposed Legislations in 2011

• The CoP is scheduled to be approved by the Legislative

3.0 New/Proposed Legislations in 2011

• The amendment of B(C)R 17 regarding loading was

3.0 New/Proposed Legislations in 2011

3.0 New/Proposed Legislations in 2011

3.0 New/Proposed Legislations in 2011

3.0 New/Proposed Legislations in 2011

3.0 New/Proposed Legislations in 2011

• External wall finishes of nominal thickness or claddings with

4.0 Clarifications of Legislations

4.0 Clarifications of Legislations

4.0 Clarifications of Legislations

• For peripheral planters on car parking floors (both under cover

4.0 Clarifications of Legislations

4.0 Clarifications of Legislations

• Retractable awnings are not currently treated as building

4.0 Clarifications of Legislations

• The 150mm thickness of prefabricated external walls

4.0 Clarifications of Legislations

• In PNAP APP-110, free-standing glass protective barriers

4.0 Clarifications of Legislations

• In B(C)R 8 that protective barriers are required “at the outer

4.0 Clarifications of Legislations

4.0 Clarifications of Legislations

• The exhaust pipes for mechanical ventilation from enclosed

4.0 Clarifications of Legislations

• Per paragraph 15.6 of the MOE Code, reduction factor did

4.0 Clarifications of Legislations

• BD stated that since there would be a risk of falling, raised

4.0 Clarifications of Legislations

4.0 Clarifications of Legislations

4.0 Clarifications of Legislations

• In the approval of GBP, the maximum dimensions of a

4.0 Clarifications of Legislations

• The allowable omission of floors was detailed in PNAP

4.0 Clarifications of Legislations

• For some A&A projects involving the extension of void or

4.0 Clarifications of Legislations

4.0 Clarifications of Legislations

• Clause 48 of the BFA Design Manual 2008 required a

You might also like