**************************************************

*******

Following is a question by the Hon Tam Yiu-chung and a written reply by the Secretary for Planning and Lands, Mr Gordon Siu, in the Legislative Council today (April 5):

Question

It was reported that only occupation certificates instead of occupation permits had been issued in respect of some residential units of Fairview Park in Yuen Long, resulting in some owners being unable to sell their properties. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the respective legal effects of an occupation permit and an occupation certificate;

(b) whether there are any difference in terms of building specifications and titles between residential units issued with occupation permits and those with occupation certificates; if so, of the details;

(c) of the respective numbers of residential units of Fairview Park issued with occupation permits and occupation certificates, and the reasons for some residential units having been issued with occupation certificates only; and

(d) of the measures in place to dispel legal concerns among owners of those residential units issued with occupation certificates only?

Reply

Madam President,

(a) Construction of private buildings in Hong Kong is governed by the Buildings Ordinance (Cap. 123) (BO) or the Buildings Ordinance (Application to the New Territories) Ordinance (Cap. 121) (BO(ANT)O). For buildings the construction of which is governed by the BO, a permit from the Building Authority, known as an Occupation Permit, is required before the building can be occupied. For buildings in the New Territories which meet certain exemption criteria such as size and height, control on their construction is under the provisions of the BO(ANT)O and an Occupation Permit is not required prior to occupation.

Under Special Condition No. 10 of the lease conditions for the Fairview Park development (Lot 4665 in DD104), the then Secretary for the New Territories gave consent to the construction of exempted houses under the purview of the BO(ANT)O in the development. As a condition of this consent, building plans for the exempted houses were required to be submitted to the then Buildings Ordinance Office (BOO) for scrutiny as if these were not so exempted. Another condition of consent was that the developer on completion of such works had to obtain a certificate from BOO stating that the buildings were in all respect suitable for occupation. Only then could the buildings be occupied.

(b) Houses at Fairview Park met all technical standards and safety requirements at the time of completion and were erected in compliance with lease conditions. The main differences between the units issued with Occupation Permits and those issued with Certificates of Occupation related to the size and height of the buildings. As a result of these differences, they come either under the purview of the BO(ANT)O or the BO.

As no Occupation Permit is required under the law for an exempted house constructed under the BO(ANT)O, the fact that such a house is not issued with an Occupation Permit does not affect its legal status and will not result in a defective title.

(c) There are currently 1,357 houses at Fairview Park for which Occupation Permits were issued and 3,660 houses for which Certificates of Occupation were issued.

(d) As explained in (a) and (b) above, there are no doubts about the legal status or the validity of the titles of those residential units which were issued with Certificates of Occupation. Therefore there are no reasons for concern in this respect.

End/Wednesday, April 5, 2000

NNNN