Rising demand for a quality and sustainable living environment
- With rapid developments in the past few decades, many urban areas in Hong Kong are now facing problems of over-crowding and air-pollution. As an advocate for consumer interests, the Consumer Council (CC) is of the view that occupants of residential buildings should be able to enjoy high quality homes and to benefit from a clean and comfortable living environment.
- In the past, people might not have paid a lot of attention to this aspect of livelihood, but in recent years, the public has been demanding improved living standards in our surroundings. In support of these calls, CC urges for development of green buildings by adopting a holistic life cycle approach to planning, design, construction and maintenance.
- CC is pleased to note that the Council for Sustainable Development (CSD) has conducted an engagement exercise to collect public views on issues influencing our built environment which have direct implication on qualify of life, public health and resource management of our community.
- CC is of the view that the scope of the engagement exercise should be broadened to examine fundamental issues such as the building bulk and height issue which relates not just the Gross Floor Area concessions but might also be related to the bigger issues of urban planning and building design. Provisions of the Buildings Ordinance is an important aspect (if not one of the root causes of many issues) to look into in procuring a quality and sustainable built environment for Hong Kong.
- CC has therefore not limited itself to respond to the areas mentioned in the IR document but will also raise some fundamental issues concerning sustainable development in our built environment for consideration of the CSD and the Government. CC's response is focused on the following three aspects:
(A) Revamp of the Buildings Ordinance
(B) Granting of Gross Floor Area concessions
(C) Public engagement exercise
(A) Revamp of the Buildings Ordinance (BO)
- CC notes that the last time a comprehensive review of the BO was conducted almost a decade ago (in 2000), with the first major review dated back to 1955. Some of the provisions in the BO and its subsidiary legislation are outdated and need to be revised and modernized to introduce comprehensive and up-to-date standards to promote green and sustainable building designs for enhancing the quality of our living environment.
- CC considers that a review of the BO should be carried out to remove barriers to innovative and green building designs, and to introduce into the regulations comprehensive and practicable standards for effective and efficient design of green buildings.
- The following provides a few examples to illustrate how the present provisions are not conducive to promoting sustainable built environment.
i. Site coverage
- The percentage site coverage permitted under Regulation 20 of the Building (Planning) Regulations (B(P)R), Cap. 123F, which allows for up to 100% site coverage for certain non-domestic buildings (e.g. podia), may contribute to the formation of compact integrated developments and podium structures with full or large ground coverage on extensive sites typically found in Hong Kong. Such building masses are particularly impeding air movement.
- CC is of the view that reducing podium structures with full or large ground coverage on extensive development sites particularly in the urban areas should be considered. This will provide more open space to enhance air movement, thus improving comfort and air quality of the built environment.
ii. Building setback
- Regulation 26 of the B(P)R stipulates that no part of any new building should be nearer to the centre line of an existing street than 2.25 metres if the width of an existing street in front of such new building is less than 4.5 metres. For large sites facing narrow urban canyon as typically found in old urban district, such limit is not helpful in improving the air ventilation and pedestrian environment particularly in view of the heights of new buildings.
- The proposal made in the IR document concerning building setback (widened to 7.5 metres measured from the centre line of the street) attempts to address the issue and illustrates the inadequacy and lagging behind of current provisions in ensuring a quality living environment for our community. CC considers provisions in the BO should be able to take account of effectiveness of building setbacks and provide for widening of streets where appropriate to bring them in line with scale of new building developments.
- CC is of the view that the setback from the street should be related and proportional to the height of the building. The taller the building, the more it blocks sunlight and air circulation, and therefore a larger setback should be required to minimize any adverse effects to the surrounding areas.
- Besides setting buildings back to bring about clear benefits, CC considers building design flexibility should also be provided for in order to avoid any potential unfair competition between small and large property developers. Small developers are generally less capable to afford building setback if the land site is small.
- As each land site has its own special features and surrounding environment, CC considers flexibility should be built-in to allow developers to come up with better designs or meet performance measure which can go some way towards achieving the sustainability objective.
iii. Building separation
- Congestion of tall buildings forming a wall-like structure to the front of prevailing wind has become an area of public concern in Hong Kong. Under Regulations 29 - 33 of the B(P)R, there are requirements governing that every room used for habitation shall be provided with natural lighting and ventilation by means of windows. However, there is no requirement that building blocks should be arranged in such a way as to minimize obstruction of airflow so as to enable the blocks behind or in the neighborhood to have wind coming through gaps between the blocks.
- CC considers that making appropriate building separation (as proposed in the IR document) will provide adequate wide buffer distance between building blocks to ensure the visual and air permeability of the developments, where practicable.
iv. Building energy efficiency
- The present Building (Energy Efficiency) Regulation (B(EE)R) of the BO requires a building to be so designed and constructed (e.g. the building materials to be used for external walls of the buildings) as to achieve energy efficiency but it applies only to commercial buildings and hotels. CC considers that expanding the scope of the B(EE)R to cover domestic premises should be explored to bring about energy efficient design and construction of green buildings.
- As regards what types of energy efficient building designs should be adopted, CC is of the view that developers should improve the insulation of buildings. It is well documented that building insulation can substantially lower air-conditioner and heating uses. CC suggests that the BO should stipulate minimum standards for building insulation.
- Many people may think that green buildings can only be achieved at a high price to the community and thus have reservation about green features. To gain community support on energy efficient building design and installations, CC considers it important for the Government to present to the public the long term implications of adoption of energy efficient building design and installations in buildings, on top of emphasizing costing issues (e.g. capital and maintenance costs) for building features that are conducive to attaining a quality and sustainable built environment.
- CC believes that there is a need to foster a change of mindset in both the industry and the community at large. For example, more information should be provided on potential cost savings from reduced energy bills, and on benefits to the environment arising from the use of energy efficiency features.
(B) Granting of GFA concessions
i. Confusion over the definition of GFA
- Although GFA concession is not the main cause of increased building bulk ("發水樓"), members of the public can be confused by what the GFA of a development would cover. At present the interpretation of "GFA" by various stakeholders in the market are varied. "GFA" is not defined by any of the government departments and presumably developers will sell the properties with GFA in line with the designated plot ratios. CC is of the view that the increased building bulk ("發水樓") issue could not be resolved if interpretations remain inconsistent.
- CC suggests that the issue with different definitions/coverage of GFA should be looked into by the Government. A comprehensive public consultation should be carried out to dig into the fundamental issues pertinent to the heart of the issue, such as standardized measurement of the floor areas, what areas can be sold and cannot be sold in a development, why the huge gap between the GFA allowed by the Government and the total floor area actually sold to the public, any malpractices identified in the property market, etc.
ii. Effectiveness of the GFA exemption policies
- As CC understands it, the Government's policy objective in granting GFA exemption is to encourage developers to provide green features in the design and construction of buildings. The effectiveness of the GFA exemption policy in promoting green features in building development should be examined in detail to provide the basis for informed policy decision (i.e. whether to continue, suspend or amend the policy).
- According to a study conducted by the Buildings Department, a total of 183 residential projects (statistics up to the end of February 2008) have included green features since the policy was introduced in 2001. The following sets out the percentage of the projects employing different green features:
Green Features % Balconies 95 Utility platforms 64 Wider corridors or lift lobbies 44 Non-structural prefabricated external walls 17 Mail delivery rooms 11 Communal sky gardens 8 Sunshades 5 Wind catches 0 Noise barries 0
- It appears to CC that the adoption situation so far is not very promising as only selective green features were well taken up by developers. Developers were more willing to incorporate commercially-viable green features such as balconies and utility platforms in their new development projects, but only a negligible number provided sunshades and wind catchers (to improve the energy efficiency and the natural ventilation of a building) in their developments. CC believes it is necessary for the Government to reconsider whether use of the GFA concessions granted has served its intended purpose of promoting a sustainable built environment for Hong Kong.
iii. Necessity of granting GFA for green features
- Although the GFA policy is intended for the common good in enhancing living conditions, developers are the ones to benefit most because the saleable areas of properties can be inflated by the presence of green features (in particular for exempting the GFA of balcony and utility platforms).
- Moreover, the GFA concessions are granted at the discretion of the Buildings Authority. Some degree of subjectivity would be involved and this may result in less certainty in terms of the final GFA concession that would be granted for a development.
- As the current trend is for building developments to include green features (which property owners have to pay for anyway), CC queries whether it is still necessary to grant GFA exemption for green features as an incentive measure for promoting green features. CC is of the view that legislation rather than GFA concessions should be used to ensure building requirements that are essential for maintaining a quality and sustainable built environment would be met.
v. Other tools for ensuring sustainable built environment
- As provided in the IR document, apart from granting GFA exemption to promote green features in buildings, other incentive and disincentive mechanisms exist. These include fiscal incentives to maintain desirable greenery around buildings, land premium adjustments to reflect reduced value of developable space, more stringent planning controls on building height and development density. CC considers that these mechanisms are worth further exploration by the Government. A combination of these mechanisms should be adopted in an interactive way.
- To promote environmentally-friendly buildings, CC considers that the setting up of a green building rating system to assess the environmental design and performance of buildings and/or giving commendations to buildings for excellence in adopting sustainable design practices should also be explored.
(C) Public engagement exercise
- As the subjects are complex and have wide ranging implications on Hong Kong's built environment, CC considers there is a need for the CSD to proactively involve residents, professionals and contractors, the other stakeholder groups and the community at large in discussions before arriving at a decision.
- CC suggests that the CSD should look at different methodologies to find out the most effective ones to encourage and collect public views, and to avoid the possibility that powerful groups with vested interest might "hijack" the engagement exercise.
- CC believes that successful implementation of a sustainable built environment requires the joint efforts of various stakeholders and the Government should try to foster a new culture in the building industry and also encourage a responsible attitude over our built environment.
- CC will be happy to collaborate with the CSD and the Government in the various stages of discussion, formulation and implementation of sustainable built environment policy.
Way forward
To make a decisive move toward sustainable built environment
- CC notes a growing community aspiration for a better living environment and calls for lower development intensity and less congested building layouts. To attain a quality and sustainable built environment, CC is of the view that adopting a mandatory approach is necessary to ensure enhancement of the quality of life in many aspects. On the other hand, if a voluntary approach is adopted, there will be no guarantee that green measures will be adopted in the absence of other requirements or incentives.
- CC considers that making green and sustainable building design features mandatory (where appropriate) is the desirable way to achieve a sustainable environment in a high-density city like Hong Kong. Whether to go for a mandatory approach is a matter of government policy but consideration should be given to the global concerns about environmental impacts to people and the rising public demand for a quality and sustainable built environment.
- CC is of the view that the Government should adopt a forward-looking approach and make a decisive move toward achieving sustainable built environment in Hong Kong. If the Government does not make its policy intent firm and clear, an unsatisfactory state may result with developers hesitant about investing in green building projects, building professionals reluctant to take part in designing and building green properties, and property owners not offered the choice of green homes. As a result, public demand for improved living environment in Hong Kong would not be met.
- In relation to the potential concerns with people's willingness to pay more for green features if GFA concessions are not to be granted. CC considers that the long-term implications in respect of economic, social and environmental benefits (such as reduced energy bills, better air quality to help mitigate health problems and thereby reduce medical costs) to building occupants and the community should be widely publicized. The Government should explore with the building industry on the additional cost of accommodating green features in buildings, in order to facilitate further discussions.
- Although the IR document only focuses on new buildings, CC is of the view that different treatment should be given to new buildings and existing buildings. Property owners of existing buildings should be encouraged but not forced to install green features in their properties, and they should not be liable for failing to install such green features. CC considers that special attention and balancing exercise ought to be made in this respect.
