1 - HKU Libraries - The University of Hong Kong

on, inter alia, the level of adequacy ofmeans of access.The recommendations of the report were endorsed by thethen Development Progress Committee (Note 6 in January 1992as the basis for controlling the intensity ofredevelopment of private sites along stepped streets.Section 16(1)(g) of the BO4.26 Generally speaking, upon receipt of buildingplans for sites abutting stepped streets, the BA wouldinvoke S. 16 (1) (g) of the BO to reject thoseredevelopments proposals exceeding a building height of 6storeys, either under its first leg on the ground thatthe proposed building would differ in height frombuildings in the immediate neighbourhood; or under itssecond leg for reason that the carrying out of theproposed building works would result in a buildingdiffering in height/intensity from the buildingpreviously existing on the same site. At the same time,a 'Letter of Concern 7 (para. 4.18 above) would be issuedby the FSD to the concerned AP/developer. Relevant partof S.16(l)(g) of the BO reads as follows -U 16.(l) The Building Authority may refuse togive his approval of any plans of buildingworks where -(g)the carrying out of the building worksshown thereon would result in abuilding differing in height, design,type or intended use from buildings inthe immediate neighbourhood orpreviously existing on the same site."4.27 The exercise of the powers under the abovepiece of legislation is an exercise of discretion by theBA. Any decision so made is subject to challenges beforean Appeal Tribunal set up under S. 43 of the BO. On 29July 1992 an Appeal Tribunal allowed a proposal for a 12-storey building at No. 11-13 Sands Street, Kennedy Townand ruled against the BA's original decision to limit thedevelopment to 7 storeys. This case, together with asubsequent similar case of redevelopment at No. 15-17Sands Street, resulted in far-reaching implications onthe BA's time-tested exercise of his residual powers- 39 -