INTRODUCTION
The outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in early 2003 has heightened public concern at the possible dire consequences of building neglect. For many buildings, in order to prolong their useful life, enhance their value and, above all, improve the hygiene and living environment for their residents and their neighbours, they have to improve their present level of management and maintenance.
PRESENT POSITION
A cardinal principle in approaching building management and maintenance is that it is building owners’ responsibility to ensure that their buildings are in good repair. The present weak building care culture has stemmed from a failure to accept this. The lack of expertise and means, absence of sustained effort and false hope for redevelopment have also contributed to building neglect.
Over the years, Government has sought to address the problem through statutory requirements, law enforcement, support for owners, education and publicity, and the urban renewal programme. Society invests hundreds of million of dollars in these efforts each year. However, success is limited. Dangerous or unauthorized building works continue to abound and pose danger to the public. Buildings without owners’ corporations (OCs) and are not serviced by management firms number about 11,000. We need to identify an effective and sustainable solution to the problem.
NEW DIRECTION
Broadly, there are three options. The first is to continue with the existing efforts. This would, however, entail the continuation and multiplication of the existing problems of urban decay, premature ageing of buildings and poor living environment.
The second option is to introduce a mandatory building safety inspection scheme requiring buildings of a certain age or above to inspect their buildings periodically and to carry out the necessary repairs to defects identified. This would enable the early identification and rectification of problems. However, an inspection scheme on its own is one-off in nature and is more geared towards cure than prevention. It may be more useful to integrate the need for regular inspections with the overall objective of promoting effective and sustained building maintenance. In any case, building owners, and not the tax-payer, should be responsible for the inspections.
The third option is integration of proper maintenance with effective management. Sustained effort in building management and maintenance not only allows for the early detection and rectification of problems and defects, but also prevents dilapidation. It will lead to long-term cost savings for the owners and value preservation and/or enhancement of an important asset. The residents and society will benefit from the improved environment and the reduced social and economic costs. Integrating proper building management and maintenance on a day-to-day basis, therefore, appears to be more attractive as the long-term solution. With the services provided by the private sector, the owners should be able to achieve this aim.
Before mapping out the implementation details, we would like to ascertain if the community is in general agreement with the third option. Specifically, we invite views on -
NEXT STEPS
We will be guided by responses to the above questions in taking the matter forward. The following are some possible areas that we may work on as our next steps.
Modern building management and maintenance requires much time, effort and expertise. This argues for the development of a multi-disciplinary industry capable of providing competitive long-term one-stop services that meet the different needs of different owners and different buildings. Possibilities include optimizing operating costs by including a number of neighbouring buildings under the same management and maintenance scheme, and providing all-inclusive agreements covering on-going management and long-term maintenance. We could encourage the industry to further develop along these lines.
Many buildings in poor maintenance have no formal management structure at all. We recognize that the formation of OCs should not be an end in itself. However, we could look into the role of OCs in the management of a building. We could also examine the circumstances that call for mandatory management.
Owners' contribution to the requisite expenses is essential to the proper management and maintenance their buildings. We believe that direct Government intervention in collecting management expenses is not warranted. Nonetheless, we could consider whether the existing remedies available for the recovery of outstanding contributions should be strengthened and whether any new measures are required.
To give positive recognition to good management and maintenance, we will explore the possibility of devising a voluntary building classification scheme.
Since owners should be responsible for their buildings’ upkeep, assistance involving public money should be reserved for the genuinely needy and truly deserving. The Buildings Department already operates a loan scheme to tide owners over if they have difficulty in meeting the costs for non-recurrent building maintenance works. We could consider extending the scheme from individual owners to OCs and topping up the fund as necessary. We could also consider whether and how further financial assistance should be provided to, say, elderly owners of dilapidated flats with little income. In addition, we could look into the need to provide guidelines for owners on building up a contingency fund to meet non-recurrent expenditure.
On Government’s part, we will continue to support and facilitate proper building management and maintenance through providing a conducive environment, including the necessary legislative framework, for both the owners and the industry to work together. We will enforce the law and promote owners’ awareness. In addition, we will ensure a holistic approach to and consistency in policy making. We will also fully enlist the help of the District Councils, and make good use of the expertise and resources of non-Government bodies such as the Hong Kong Housing Society and the Urban Renewal Authority in taking our work forward.
THE WAY FORWARD
We welcome views on this document. The details for sending in views are set out on the inside cover.