Introduction - HKU Libraries - The University of Hong Kong

3.15 During the last three years, a total of 580 UBW caseshave been referred to BD from various DLOs for action under theBuildings Ordinance and these 580 UBW cases are not restrictedto NTEH only. However, for various reasons which will beexplained later on, the response from BD in respect of suchreferrals had been rather disappointing.BUILDING DEPARTMENT'S 1988 POLICY ON UBW 13.16 With effect from March 1988, BD had introduced a policyunder which UBW are classified into a High Priority (HP) Groupand Low Priority (LP) Group. For HP Group, enforcement actionis taken as a matter of priority, and for the LP Groupenforcement action can be deferred. The criteria forclassification are as follow -(a) High Priority Group(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(b) Low Priority GroupUBW constituting an imminently dangeroussituation where there is obvious danger tolife or property*Significant new UBW irrespective of the dateof completion of the building on which theUBW have been erected.UBW recommended for removal by DistrictBoards, District Offices, BD itself or othergovernment department or public agencies.Major UBW which contravene the BuildingsOrdinance and lease condition at the sametime.UBW not covered by the High Priority Group.3.17 Under the BD's current policy, UBW in the LP group maybe upgraded to the HP Group under certain circumstances,particularly where the UBW may lead to deterioration of theenvironment or may render good building management difficult.In the Report of the Investigation on Unauthorised BuildingWorks published in April 1995, COMAC pointed out that the1988 Policy on UBW was inherently unfair and inconsistentand should be reviewed (para. 8.13) .- 16 .-