1 - HKU Libraries - The University of Hong Kong

obstructions to EVAs (which was reaffirmedby legal advice), it would appearthat the FSD has shown reluctance to serveany FHANs. The lack of any enforcementactions in this regard indicates thatthere are practical difficulties inenforcement actions in respect of EVAs, asagainst the case of obstructions to FSIsand equipment. For example, suchobstructions are normally caused by parkedvehicles whose drivers may not be readilylocated. This Office has noted, withinterest, that the FSD is continuing toobtain legal advice on how thisenforcement problem can be resolved.(o)The FSD obtained legal advice as far backas in 1975 that where the standard ofvehicular access would have a directeffect on the structure when occupied,that structure might be regarded anddeclared as a possible "fire hazard" underthe FSO. Notwithstanding this advice, theFSD had not taken any relevant enforcementactions in respect of such situations suchas to issue a FHAN under the FSO inrespect of the completed building orsought to declare such a building as a*dangerous building" under the BO by BA.Instead, the FSD had chosen to issue,during the processing stage of thebuilding plans, a "letter of concern' tothe AP concerned expressing its concern onthe lack of proper vehicular accesses tothe building. However, as these letterswere only advisory in nature, the advicegiven was not binding on the developersconcerned,(p) In the case of public sector buildings,some of the management concerned might notbe aware of the existence of an EVA whenthe premises were handed over by the ArchSD. As a result, the management might notbe aware of the need to ensure that theseEVAs are kept free from obstructions atall times.- 92 -