In Hong Kong, the problem of poor repair in aging buildings has become more acute in recent years. There have been several accidents recently, wherein concrete, plaster or illegal structures/installations peeled away from the outer walls of old buildings because of a lack of proper maintenance, and fell from a height, hitting vehicles and passersby on the street, causing a public safety hazard. 

Many of those buildings had exceeded the deadlines for mandatory building inspection or maintenance, but their owners had not taken any action to improve the condition of their dilapidated buildings. 

The relevant government departments seem to have not taken any effective measures to ensure the owners’ compliance with the rules and regulations, including launching a timely prosecution. This has raised questions about the integrity and quality of their work.

Both the Audit Commission and the Office of the Ombudsman have criticized the enforcement efforts of the authorities, particularly the Buildings Department. Although the government has increased the manpower and resources for tackling the problem of dilapidated buildings in response to criticism, it has failed to effectively deal with the public safety hazards caused by the large number of old buildings in a state of disrepair.

As of 2022, more than 26,000 buildings in Hong Kong were over 30 years old, and nearly 20 percent of them, or approximately 5,200 buildings, were in a state of disrepair. However, authorities only have the resources to inspect about 700 buildings each year, which is insufficient to reduce the number of dilapidated old buildings. 

Given that the government’s manpower and resources cannot increase indefinitely and that it is struggling to keep up with the increase of deteriorating old buildings, I wonder why the government has not come up with a multipronged approach to solve or at least alleviate the problem after so many years. Was it because there is no other solution for the problem?

There have been suggestions that the government, particularly the Urban Renewal Authority, should accelerate the revitalization of districts such as Kwun Tong and Tsuen Wan by redeveloping their old buildings. 

However, such a process would be extremely time-consuming and unlikely to achieve the desired results because of many constraints or requirements, including the funding necessary for compensation to the affected property owners, the public housing units available to rehouse the affected occupants, the disturbance to the area caused by relatively large-scale redevelopment projects, and the manpower and resources needed for implementing renewal or redevelopment projects.

In response, the government has adopted various measures, such as relaxing and simplifying the redevelopment approval process, introducing the concept of “plot ratio transfer”, and increasing the permitted redevelopment density, so as to enhance the financial viability of more old-building redevelopment projects.

On top of this, there are assistance and funding support to the strata title owners to encourage them to carry out regular maintenance works on old buildings. It is indisputable that if maintenance work is done well, the usable life of buildings can be longer. 

In fact, there are aging buildings that remain in good condition thanks to regular maintenance work. Therefore, redevelopment might not be the only solution to urban decay; and proper maintenance is also a proven solution to urban renewal. After all, it is the owners’ responsibility to keep their property in good condition.

Perhaps the government should consider ways to encourage establishing a sinking fund for property owners to do preventive maintenance works. There is also the problem of “three-nil” buildings, which lack an owners’ corporation or any form of residents’ organization, or which have not engaged a property management company, whose maintenance works are long overdue. In this situation, the government should step in to carry out the maintenance work of the common areas of the buildings, and assist individual owners to effect the essential repair and maintenance works of their units.

Additionally, the government should evaluate potential amendments to lower the threshold stated in the Deed of Mutual Covenant (DMC) for carrying out management and maintenance works of common parts and facilities of buildings, empowering the government to deal with the maintenance works on behalf of individual owners even without the consent of 100 percent of the owners. Furthermore, related authorities should be empowered to intervene in the management of properties and the collection of fees from individual owners.

In fact, I have repeatedly urged authorities to promote and facilitate preventive maintenance works over the past years. There should be a plan for future maintenance from the moment a new building is completed and sold. 

Measures could include the requirement for the developer and firsthand owners to set up a specifically designated maintenance fund so that future large-scale repairs and maintenance works can be funded, as well as additional requirements to be included in DMCs for the establishment of owners’ associations, and the right for property management companies to conduct inspections of individual units under their management within a reasonable time to facilitate the maintenance of the common parts of the property. All these would facilitate proper property maintenance.

Although the current situation of old building dilapidation in Hong Kong is undesirable, there are potential solutions that could be adopted to ease the problem. 

A multipronged approach is definitely necessary. However, the effectiveness of these measures hinges on whether the authorities and property owners are committed to implementing well-planned management and maintenance programs.

The author is a member of the Legislative Council (Architectural, Surveying, Planning and Landscape).

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.