1 - HKU Libraries - The University of Hong Kong

(i)The issue of "warning letters' (firstissued in 1974), and later the"advisory letters', to the developersconcerned in respect of the lack ofEVAs for their proposed developmentshad ceased in 1994. The EVAprovisions in these letters were notbinding on the developers concerned,and were seen as advisory in natureonly.(ii) Under S. 16(1) of the BO, the BA hasthe power to refuse to give hisapproval of any plans .of buildingworks. However, this legislationdoes not empower the BA to disapprovebuilding plans because EVA is notavailable to a site. If all therequirements regarding FSIs andequipment are fully complied withunder the BO, the BA cannot refuse toissue an Occupation Permit for thebuilding in question.(iii)S. 2 of the FSO gives a cleardefinition of FSIs and equipment.The D of FS cannot decline the issueof a certificate under S. 16(1)(b) ofthe BO on the ground that his adviceon EVA has been ignored.Accordingly, all the building plansmust be dealt with in terms of therequirements of S. 16(1) of the BOwhich, legally speaking, only dealswith FSI and not EVA matters.(i)The BA's residual powers under S. 16(1)(g)of the BO to disapprove building plansbecause of fire safety related reasonsproved to be ineffective after they wererepeatedly and successfully contested atthe Buildings Appeals Tribunal in theSands Street cases in 1993.(j) According to the Building (Planning)Regulation 5(1) and (2), the BA mayrequire the provision of an access lane oraccess road within the site of any new-90 -