By John Lam Asset Enhancement • Building Law • Design • Uncategorized 0 Comments

Make Use of Verandah in High Rise Buildings for Fire Safety Aspect

The impact of Fire Safety Code in Hong Kong

The fire safety code has experienced a few rounds of reform. The most influential reform we opined was the code published in 1996 and also the code in 2011. While there are many honorable peers have shared the view to both code applicable in Hong Kong, GBE found one interesting HK-unique escape staircase arrangement which have been prevailing in 2 decades ago. This the verandah space intercepting between the apartment units and the requirement staircase (usually scissor-type)

 

Verandah Space being merged 

This verandah space was a space designed in half-open to the external air. The space is connecting between the staircase and the apartment unit through the fire-rated doors. Driven by congested space in Hong Kong, some verandah, in this case, has been enclosed by the window and merged to the apartment units. This was deemed to be against the fire safety code or approved plan.

 

GBP for showing the Typical location of the verandah in a domestic unit

The Provision of HK CAP 502

In 2007, the HONG KONG CAP 572 Fire Safety (Buildings) Ordinance has been put into enforcement. The “Purpose Of Ordinance” is cited in clause 2 of Cap 572 and We copied here as follows.

This ordinance is aimed to provide protection from the risk of fire of occupants, users, and visitors to certain kinds of composite buildings and domestic buildings.

The law further explains the requirements including fire service installation and equipment and fire safety construction for different kinds of buildings in its Schedule 1 , 2, and 3 correspondingly. The governing requirements stated clearly is to apply the Code 1996 as the “standard” to satisfy the intention of this Ordinance. Thus, the said “Verandah” enclosure or modification is likely in this radar.

 

What did Code in 1996 talk about the “Verandah”

In our view, there was no direct elaboration to the “veranda” being designed for the intercepting lobby between the required staircase and the unit. From the MOE code 1996 and FRC 1996, there was a few relevant paragraphs which came up eventually the “veranda” application as a protected lobby. Since the author was not the Code writer nor in an authoritative position to comment, this blog of write-up serves to trigger some interesting discussion.

 

The provision of the “Protection” lobby was written in clause 13.5 in MOE 1996 and the design of “Protection lobby” was explained in 11.3 FRC 1996. Nevertheless, the enclosing wall of the Protected lobby was further explained in clause 11.7. Honestly, it was a complex integration of different clauses at different code and could easily lead to various explanation outcomes. This undesirable situation such complex set of codes has been improved in lately 2011 code.

The interpretations of Protected Lobby stated in MOE 1996 Code

The design of “Required staircase and protected lobby” was explained in Clause 11.3 at FRC 1996 Code

The Clause 13.5 in MOE 1996 Code

Indeed, the old 1996 code has remarked very clearly in clause 13.5 MOE 1996 code that “such lobby shall be designed as a common area and an integral part of the staircase so that it could not be readily incorporated as part of any adjacent unit(s) of accommodation” The 1996 code did aware the issue of merging the protection lobby to the private unit. Nevertheless, the complex nature of the set of codes 1996 which led to different explanations may undermine the intention in clause 13.5.

Plan for demonstrating the Verandah between the required staircase and the apartment

Above is another example where the “Veranda” was inserted between the escape staircase and the apartment. Interestingly, the kitchen doors also opened to the verandah. It was believed that this layout configuration is hardly survivable in today’s Code.

By John Lam Asset Enhancement • Building Law • Building Technology • • 0 Comments

“Common Staircase” shared by adjoining lot in Hong Kong

The leftover structure coming from rapid Urban redevelopment in Hong Kong

In the urban development , the land was delineated by “Block” and was subsequently craved or partitioned in a different section and eventually further craved into different sub-section. It resulted a lot of common boundary to each piece of lands adjoining to each other.

 

The common boundary bought in the typical implication of “party wall” and “common staircase”. There was a blog written by GBE about “party wall”. The reader is welcome to comment. “Common staircase” is what this article goes deep.

 

The main staircase of the building became as “common” because it was commonly shared between two pieces of land. The common staircase was jointly owned for the enjoyment of the entire building. Since it was common to two adjoining pieces of land, it naturally positioned at the boundary line. It was not a must but naturally came up in the middle between two lots.

Redevelopment and remaining common staircase

With the re-development took place in one piece of land, the adjoining land where the original main building sitting on was necessitated to maintain the common staircase for access. This came up the situation alike to the “Party wall” where the common staircase needs to be retained and still occupy land and space on the land going to be redeveloped.

 

The first and immediate concern is obviously the common staircase is an enclosed space and fall into the definition of GFA. Nevertheless, this common staircase is nothing helpful and undesirable to new development. To cope with this, the above-extracted part plan has illustrated the example of how the PNAP ADM -2 resolves the GFA problem. In short , the entire footprint of the common staircase be deductible from the GFA calculation. According to PNAP ADM-2 from the Buildings Department, the existing common staircase for an old building can be excluded from site coverage and plot ratio calculation.

 

Case Study in two adjoining Urban buildings

Building “A” was redeveloped in 1992. The landlord was obligated to leave the common staircase un-touched and exempted its footprint from accountable GFA. Building “B” was subsequently redeveloped in 2008, but the redevelopment of Building B has demolished partly the “common staircase” sitting on the respective piece of land.

Ground Floor Plan of Building A (showing the Location of Common staircase with Building B)

 

 

GFA Calculation of Building A

 

Ground Floor Plan of Building B (showing the Location of Common staircase with Building A)

 

 

Site Area Calculation in Building B

Another example showing the common staircase issue

Building “C” was redeveloped in 2004, while Building D was redeveloped in 1994. Building “C” and Building “D” retained the common staircase after both redevelopments.

Ground Floor Plan of “Building C”

Ground Floor Plan of “Building D”

Funny interesting maintenance issue

The interesting things come up is that building A which developed earlier than Building B was containing the old “common staircase” . This old left-over common staircase in Building “A” was not GFA counted by the time of redevelopment. The owner of Building A is caught in dilemma. The site where building A sitting on has fully exploited its GFA potential by the time of its redevelopment in 1992. It is now found no surplus GFA be able to assign to this leftover physical ” common staircase” space in the hope to light up again the space utilisation, particularly valuable in highly urbanised city area. The landlord of building A is naturally no incentive to maintain nor convert this common staircase to other proper usage. The only value is the external wall of the left-over common staircase which was being poised for signage in Building “A” (as shown on the photo below. Obviously, the author is wondering the maintenance liability to the grandfather jointly owned structure , i.e Common staircase

 

By John Lam Asset Enhancement • Building Law • Uncategorized • • • • 0 Comments

Misery of Non-accountable GFA in Existing Building. The road from plain drawings to value-added

GFA is the core asset in real estate

GFA – Gross Floor Area is considered as the core valuable asset in real estate. One of the significant governing regulation to GFA stated in Buildings Ordinance is Building (Planning )Reg 23. The Reg 23 (3)(b) have listed in literal form the areas which can be subject to non-accountable GFA whereas the Reg 23(3)(a) has included all areas within the external of buildings as GFA countable.

The Ordinance allows some accountant GFA in 23(3)(a) becomes considered as non-accountable GFA through the power vested to Buildings Authority by section 42 of Buildings Ordinance and explained by the ADV – 02 (PNAP 30 in former version). Some GFA calculation cases are further complicated by the injection of sustainable development requirements stated in APP 151.

Existing Building GFA vs Regulation 23(a) 

In existing Building which was built in decade ago plus , the control to the non-accountable GFA was relied by Reg 23(3)(b) which generally covered the essential plants / duct / carpark etc. When the landlord wants to review/revamp the existing GFA hoping for unlocking the hidden potential, the latest requirements in 23(3)(a) mentioned before will kick in to the backdrop.

Some areas within the building which had been exempted from accountant GFA in the past may have to re-examine under Reg 23(3)(a) and is assessed in the ADV -02. The interesting but painful point is that some typically exempted in the past may now become accountable unless the modification is granted by BA. In some case, the modification is not straight-forward but under complex assessment such as BEAM requirement in APP 151. Obviously, the latest GFA requirements has blocked the unlock of some potential GFA.

Example showing the effect impact from tightening of GFA assessment

Assuming there is plant room , this plant room is assumed be acceptable by Reg 23(b). The implication of GFA will be manifest because the protected lobby going with the plant room will be exempted. To the contrary, If the said “plant room” is NOT in Reg 23(b), the GFA exemption will be at the stakes. The wall and associated protected lobby solely serving for plant rooms will be subject to the “non-mandatory features”. The area of wall and associated protected lobby will be barred by the overall cap of 10% in paragraph 4 APP 151 for non-mandatory features) . The capping 10% will effect some GFA from non accountable back to accountable.

Case by Case assessment 

Valuable assets in the urban areas are all GFA driven for the best maximization of property value. This is the key driving incentive to closely review and revamp from time to time to unlock the potential hidden GFA in the active asset management.

(Reader is advised to look also other strategies which have been shared in our other blog” of this website)