1 - HKU Libraries - The University of Hong Kong

This Note had been consistently applied to the SandsStreet since that year so that no new buildings over 7storeys had been approved. Some of the main argumentsput forward by the BA in support of his refusal of thetwo redevelopment proposals related to theinfrastructural constraints of the sites and the firesafety of the residents concerned, or more precisely forthe latter, the relative fire safety of a 12 and 17storey residential building to a 7 storey residentialbuilding.4.32 On the fire safety aspect, the then BOO wasaware, in both cases, of the FSD's new philosophy on firefighting and fire prevention. The BOO noted that by theprovision of FSIs and equipment of an enhanced standardin situations where a building was not accessible to fireengines and appliances, FSD personnel could fight firesfrom within the building by using the internal FSIs. andequipment. Moreover, by imposing suitable FSDrequirements, all new buildings could be made safe from afire-fighting and fire-prevention point of view. The BOOconsidered, however, that in assessing safety, thequestion of degree should always be borne in mind.4.33 Therefore, irrespective of the internal FSIsand equipment, the taller the building, the less safe itwould be, relatively speaking. This was because a tallerbuilding would accommodate more people, it would take alonger time for these people to escape to a place ofsafety and FSD personnel would have greater difficulty inrescuing those people who were unable to escape. In thecontext of both cases, this meant that relativelyspeaking, a 7 storey building was safer than a 12 storeyor a 17 storey building. Therefore, the lack ofvehicular access in Sands Street was one of the relevantconsiderations in the exercise of the BA's discretionunder S. 16(1) (g) of the BO.4.34 In both appeal cases, the Tribunal considered,inter alia, the infrastructural and town planning as wellas fire safety considerations put forward by the BA inhis refusal of the relevant redevelopment proposals.Decisions of past similar cases of the Tribunal were alsoexamined and taken into account. In relation to suchconsiderations, the Tribunal examined the ambit of S.16(1) (g) of the BO to ascertain whether the BA wasentitled to take into account the same and what- 42 -