Summary of Items Discussed in 1/2015 APSEC Discussion Forum on 9 January 2015

Items proposed by Convenors for Discussion Summary of Discussion and BD’s Responses
Items raised by HKIA
1. PNAP APP-2 – Carparking and Loading and Unloading Areas
As stated in item 16(ii) - all car-parking spaces to be disregarded from GFA The BD advised that according to Footnote 1 and paras. 2, 10, 11 and
should be provided with EV charging facilities, which may comprise 13(i) of TGNBD, the provision of electricity meters and socket outlets
switchboards, distribution boards, electricity meters, cabling, conduits, were optional for the purpose of EV charging-enabling for car parks of
trunking and socket outlets, according to TGNBD (Technical Guidelines for new developments. Under paras. 13 and 15 of TGNBD, all fixed
Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging-enabling for Car Parks of New Building electrical installations including switch boards, distribution boards,
Developments issued by EMSD in April 2011) & EMSD guideline (Technical cabling, conduits and trunking should be fully installed, tested and
Guidelines on Charging Facilities for Electric Vehicle). commissioned before occupation of the new building. Hence, such
meters and sockets would not be required to be installed before
With reference to the footnote of TGNBD guideline P.1, it is stated that “the submission of an application for OP. In this connection, HKIA would
provisions of electricity meter(s) and socket outlets are optional for the purpose provide photographs and details of such electrical installations required
of EV charging-enabling for car parks of new building developments.” for application for an OP for BD’s reference.

Please clarify that the provisions and installation of electricity meter(s) and The BD clarified that the relevant transformer room, switch room and
socket outlets are optional and not mandatory for OP inspection following the meter room for EV charging-enabling should be designed to cater for
TGNBD guideline. all such car-parking spaces and such rooms might be disregarded from
GFA calculations. Subject to satisfactory information from the power
In addition, please confirm the space reserved for future transformer room and companies provided by HKIA, the BD might consider issuing an
switch rooms to cater for the installation of EV chargers should be exempted internal instruction on the acceptance of the switch boards and
from GFA calculations, and it is suggested that a statement like “Reserved for transformers to be provided and installed by the power companies at a
Transformer/Switch Board for future EV chargers” be shown at the concerned later stage after the issuance of the occupation permit on the condition
areas on the GBP. that these rooms should be fitted out in a status ready for installation of
1
 the remaining transformers and switch boards in future.

2. Architectural Features at Cladding

According to the summary of a previous ADF (item(15)(d) in Oct 2012 ADF),
architectural features not exceeding 500mm from the external walls of a
building could be incorporated in a curtain wall design. By the same token,
architectural features should also be acceptable to be projected on the 90mm
external cladding works. Please confirm our understanding is correct.
The BD confirmed that architectural features projecting not more than
500mm from the external wall of a building with acceptable extent
might be incorporated in curtain wall or external cladding design. For
architectural features with projections exceeding 500mm, only the
exceeding portion should be included in the GFA calculations.

Extracted from Summary of Oct 2012 ADF

3. PNAP APP-27 – Gas Water Heaters

Please clarify if it is a requirement to allow for enlargement of a The BD advised that subject to granting of a modification under
non-standard-sized aperture in the future to become a standard-sized aperture if regulation 35A of the Building (Planning) Regulations, for a residential
another standard-sized aperture for future use is already provided at each flat. flat provided with a standard size aperture capable for future
installation of a gas heater requiring such standard size aperture, any
other non-standard size apertures provided in the same flat (within the
serving distance of the said standard size aperture according to para.
5(h) of PNAP APP-27) would not be required to be capable of
enlargement to become a standard size aperture.

2
4. PNAP APP-152 – Paragraph 4.2 of Appendix B and Figure 10
According to paragraph 4.2 in Appendix B of PNAP APP-152, it is acceptable The BD advised that the interpretation of IS would be further discussed
for intervening spaces to have a clear height of not less than 2/3 of the in the coming working sessions on the draft revised PNAP APP-152 on
assessment zone, whether it is open or covered above. Please confirm that this SBD Guidelines.
interpretation is correct.

3
4
5
5. CoP for Site Supervision 2009
The tender price index has been increased over 48.9% from 2009 – 2014 with The BD advised the revised Basic Value of Assessment in the CoP Site
reference to RLB’s Quarterly Construction Cost Update as of September Supervision would be issued shortly to BSC/APSEC members for
2014. Accordingly we suggest that the Basic Values for Assessment of the comment and proposed HKIA and other professional bodies to
Scale of Works for Supervision Plan (Table 8.1) shall be adjusted by a similar comment on the proposed revisions.
magnitude for cost related works, including site formation works, slope/
retaining wall, ELS, pile wall, tunnel works, piling, footing, cap, basement,
A&A works and minor works.
Extracts from RLB’s Quarterly Construction Cost Update as of September
2014 are provided below for easy reference:

6
6. CoP for Fire Safety in Buildings (FS Code) Clause C9.1 & C9.2

Clause C9.1 lists out the requirements for all lift wells, and Clause C9.1(d)
states that if the lift connects basement and above-ground storey(s), a smoke
seal lobby shall be provided to the lift doors at basement. Clause C9.2 states
that landing doors and liftwell of a panorama lift or bullet lift serving a single
fire compartment are not required to have fire resisting construction.
In the case of a lift located in a “single fire compartment” where part of the
compartment is located at a basement e.g. a lift inside a clubhouse
accommodation connecting B1/F, G/F & 1/F in one single compartment (see
diagram below) or a lift inside a 4-storey house with a basement carpark lift
opening, please advise if a smoke seal lobby in Clause C9.1(d) is required at the
“basement” lift opening in a single compartment situation.
The BD advised that a smoke sealed lobby was not required at the
basement floors if the panorama lift would only serve the basement
floors and those above-ground storeys as all these floors had been
designed as one single fire compartment complying with FS Code
Clause C14.1. However, a smoke sealed lobby would be required if
there would be another lift serving this compartment and other storeys
above these compartment.

7
7. Flexural strength tests under weathering conditions for BIPV Panels
In recent structural submissions of a covered walkway with BIPV laminated
tempered glass, Technical Section Unit of BD requests the carrying out of
Flexural Strength Test to the BIPV panels. This was only required in some but
NOT every structural submission involving BIPV panels. Please clarify the
circumstances where such test is to be imposed.
Details of the required test are as follows:
Flexural strength tests…with glass type, thicknesses/types of interlayers
identical to the laminated glass panel with BIPV module as shown in the
approved plans before and after an accelerated weathering condition to
appropriate standard such as ANSIZ97.1-2009 American National Standard for
8
The BD advised that whether material testing to justify the design
assumptions was required would depend on the design assumption
adopted by the RSE. Should composite action of the BIPV laminated
glass be adopted in the design assumption, the structural properties of
the glass panels should be verified by testing conducted by established
testing laboratories accredited by HOKLAS or other recognized
accreditation bodies described in PNAP APP-118. The submission of
testing reports or carrying out of appropriate tests to justify the design
assumptions would be required before approval was to be granted.
 safety glazing materials used in buildings – safety performance specifications
and methods of test, (i.e. minimum 2000 hours test) should be carried out to
confirm its durability with respect to flexural strength.

Items raised by HKIS (Convenor: Sr Andrew KUNG)

8. FS Code Clause C5.3
The required staircase of some old buildings were built at the perimeter of site
boundary of an adjoining site without 900 mm width imperforate external wall
of adequate FRR (FS Code Clause C5.3). (See attached part plan of an
approved building plan.) The addition of such 900 mm FRR wall will reduce
the approved clear width of final discharge of that required staircase and its
discharge value. If site constraints exist, can we keep the approved design of
that required staircase without addition of the 900 mm wall when carrying out
A&A works?
The BD replied that reference should be made to para. 3(i) of PNAP
APP-153 which stated that generally only the areas affected by the
proposed A&A works should need to comply with the requirements of
the FS Code. However, for the case of wholesale conversion of an
existing building, it should be considered case-by-case having regard
to any genuine site constraints and special circumstances.

9
9. FS Code Clause C9.4
Clause C9.4 of fire safety code stipulated that a required staircase, if enclosed BD responded that a steel staircase should be considered as
within FRR walls, need not have FRR but must be non-combustible. Please non-combustible.
clarify whether steel staircase can be considered as non-combustible.

10. FS Code Clauses C13.1 and C17.1

Please clarify whether Clause C17.1 of fire safety code also applies to refuge Regarding FRR separation, BD clarified that Clause C17.1 should not
roof and -/240/240 FRR separation is required for plant room (Clause C13.1 of be applied to refuge roof but the Commentary for Clause B18.3 should
fire safety code refers) of special hazard (Clause C13.1 of fire safety code comply with.
refers) on refuge roof.
[Post-meeting note : The refuge floor should have an FRR of not less
than that of the storey below in accordance with

10

Items raised by AAP (Convenor: Ms Carolin FONG)
11. PNAP APP-152 – Paragraph 19 (a)
Re. PNAP APP-152 para. 19(a), “Greenery areas shall be uncovered except at
the pedestrian zone where they may be covered under projecting features,
provided that the clear height of projecting features above the covered area is
not less than 8 times the horizontal width of the covered area as shown in
Appendix E.”
Clause C12.3.]
The BD confirmed that the projecting features referred to in PNAP
APP-152 should not be limited to flower box. Other features such as
utility platforms, balconies, architectural features and projecting fins
might be accepted under Appendix E of PNAP APP-152.

Please clarify if balcony, UP, architecture features; projecting fins or any other
projecting structures can be regarded as “projecting features” in the above
statement, i.e. if 1:8 ratio is fulfilled, the covered greenery on G/F or within
pedestrian zone can be counted as greenery areas under SBD.

Please also clarify if Appendix E diagram is just a reference of 1:8 calculation

and not representing only projecting planter box to be considered as "projecting
features".

11
12. PNAP APP 25 – Geotechnical Assessment Report
PNAP APP-25 required general building plan (GBP) submission to be The AAP would provide suggestion in the next APSEC meeting on
accompanied by Geotechnical Assessment Report (GAR) for project sites how to waive the GAR requirements for very small scale A&A
which the geotechnical criteria in para. 2 apply. proposals.

12
 For simple Alteration and Addition (A&A) work which involves only minor
structural loading redistribution but does not involve any work on existing site
formation and retaining structure, it is understand that GAR should not be
required in GBP submission stage. Would BD clarify.

AOB Items
13. Witness for wind tunnel testing by RSE/ RSE’s representative
(Item raised by HKIE)

It is understood that BD requires RSE or his/ her representative to witness the
carrying out of wind tunnel testing which may be conducted in a place far
from Hong Kong. Please advise the required qualification of the
representative.
For quality assurance of wind tunnel test, BD would request the RSE
or his/her representative to witness the calibration and carrying out of
the wind tunnel test. The representative should be an independent
engineer who should not be a staff or employee of the testing
laboratory. The independent engineer should possess a professional
qualification of MHKIE/MICE/MIStructE or equivalent with relevant
working experience of 5 years. The RSE or the independent
engineer should ensure that the specified quality assurance procedures
are properly followed.

14. Minor Structural (A&A) works

(Item raised by HKIA)

Whether the proposed filling up of small slab opening would be processed The BD responded that filling up of small slab opening would be
under fast track processing as described in paragraph 26 of PNAP ADM-19. considered as structural submission and subject to the AP/RSE's
confirmation statements and satisfactory submission of the certificate
in Appendix G of PNAP ADM-19, it could be treated as minor
structural submission and concurrent applications for approval and

13
 consent would be processed within 30 days..

15. Staircase interchange under FS Code Clause B8.2

(Item raised by HKIA)

Clause B8.2 required the staircase interchange be arranged without passing The BD advised that for the purposes of Clause B8.2, there was no
through other person’s private premises. Please advise whether it is acceptable need to provide any permanent or fixed separation with FRR to define
to provide a right of passage in private premises to be used as a passage to such passage, but the passage should be designated as “Common Area”
fulfill such requirement instead of denoting it as common areas. in the GBP to ensure the integrity of the passage.

The BD further stated that this requirement had been in force since the
first introduction of similar requirements in the MOE Code 1996. A
brief checking of previous GBP submissions revealed that such
passage had been designated as “Common Area”. Hence, it was
expected that there should be no insurmountable problem to comply
with such requirement. The BD noted different views expressed by
the practitioners and advised that the issue should be comprehensively
reviewed by the Technical Committee on the FS Code.

16. Greenery provided for the purpose of PNAP APP-152

(Item raised by HKIA)

Is it acceptable for the Greenery provided for the purpose of PNAP APP-152 HKIA highlighted that this was the understanding given at the earlier
to be filled up with soil only at the time of OP inspection? task-force meetings between BD and HKIA on SBD Guidelines dating
back to 2012, but had not been documented by the BD.

Subject to research on the records, BD’s initial stance was that the

14
 provision of planting soil at the proposed greenery areas for the
purpose of PNAP APP-152 should suffice at the time of OP inspection.

[Post-meeting note : The BD had informed the case officers that only
planting soil for the required greenery should be
properly provided at the time of OP inspection.
For the vertical greenery in the form of modular
planter/ panel and vertical frame for climbing or
weeping plants, the modular panel and the
vertical frame should be installed at the OP
stage.]
17. DM: BFA Division 10 paragraphs 39 & 40
(Item raised by AAP)

Is the 330mm unobstructed area adjacent to door handle required under DM: The BD advised that DM: BFA 2008 had not specified push or pull
BFA Div 10 para. 39 also required for double action door as provided under side clearly. It was suggested that comments from stakeholders on
DM: BFA Div 10 para. 40? this issue would be required. AAP would provide relevant sketches.

[Post-meeting note : AAP provided sketches below to show the

operation of a double swing door without
330mm unobstructed area for the use by PwD.]

15
18. PNAP APP-19 para. 6
(Item raised by AAP)

16
 Whether the areas covered by projecting features connecting to a functional AAP withdrew this item and would provide further information for
space but with a very high ratio of horizontal width of the covered area to the discussion in later forum.
clear height of the projecting features above the covered area, say 1:30 or even
1:50, could be disregarded from GFA calculation?

19. PNAP APP-152 para. 14

(Item raised by HKIA)

Further to the item 18 above, whether the set back area at ground level under The BD advised that if there was no commercial function facing the
the footprint of the projecting structures higher than 15m can be exempted said area, and it complied with the requirement of 1:8 ratio as
from GFA calculation if it is designated as common areas but connects to stipulated in PNAP APP 19, the setback area might be excluded from
commercial activities of the building. GFA calculations.

19A. Building Set-back providing cover

(Item raised by HKIA)

Further to item 18 above, as per paras. 20, 21 & 23 of PNAP APP-42, BD requested HKIA to provide diagrams to illustrate the issue for
“Horizontal Screen” for the sake of providing protection against inclement further consideration.
weather and falling objects may be permitted for the domestic portion of a
development. However, the concerned paragraphs of the said PNAP are [Post-meeting note : HKIA provided the following diagrams.]
currently interpreted very literally, and thus similar covered passage design for
providing protection against inclement weather/falling objections by means of
“Building Setback” arrangement may not be granted with GFA concession as
per its counterpart adopting the “Horizontal Screen” design.

As the Building Set-back scenario equally provides a falling-object cum

17
 weather-protected passage with the same degree of openness as that of the
Horizontal Screen scenario, the former arrangement should also enjoy the same
extent of GFA concession; bearing in mind that building bulk has already been
controlled under the SC/PR/SBD Guidelines regime, and that the Building
Set-back scenario is even more sustainable in certain aspect when there is no
need to erect additional building feature (i.e the Horizontal Screen) for
implementation of the subject covered passage.

We would request the BD to consider treating the 2 scenarios (i.e. Horizontal

Screen or Building Setback arrangement) on the same par in terms of GFA
concession.

20. FS Code Section E

(Item raised by HKIA)

British Standards (BS) for testing fire properties of building elements and The BD advised that this issue would be followed up and reported back
components would be obsolete in future. In what circumstances can those in due course.

18
materials and components tested under BS still be accepted when those BS
become obsolete at the time of OP application?

19