Mandatory open-space and fire-access rules cannot be diluted by podium space or inadequate redevelopment relaxations.

DCR 23 was interpreted as requiring a mandatory minimum recreational open space at ground level, and DCR 38(34)(iv) was treated only as an additional facility permitting podium recreation without overriding that minimum. The result is that podium recreational space cannot replace the required open-to-sky open space. The second proviso to DCR 43(1)(A) was found inconsistent with Articles 14 and 21 because the reduced fire-access setback for certain redevelopment plots did not ensure adequate fire-engine access and maneuverability. The provision was therefore held bad in law, with the stated alternative access conditions remaining relevant where applicable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the minimum recreational space required under DCR 23 could be reduced by relying on DCR 38(34), including recreational space on a podium. (ii) Whether the second proviso to DCR 43(1)(A), which relaxed fire-access requirements for certain redevelopment plots, was valid.

Issue (i): Whether the minimum recreational space required under DCR 23 could be reduced by relying on DCR 38(34), including recreational space on a podium.

Analysis: DCR 23 was held to prescribe a mandatory minimum recreational open space based on plot size, and its scheme indicated that such open space had to be maintained at ground level as a genuine open-to-sky area. DCR 38(34)(iv) merely permitted recreational space on an open-to-sky podium as an additional facility and did not contain any non-obstante clause overriding DCR 23. Reading it as a substitute would erode the minimum open-space requirement and undermine the right to life and environmental considerations.

Conclusion: The minimum recreational space under DCR 23 cannot be reduced on the basis of DCR 38(34), and any podium recreational space is only in addition to the mandatory ground-level open space.

Issue (ii): Whether the second proviso to DCR 43(1)(A), which relaxed fire-access requirements for certain redevelopment plots, was valid.

Analysis: Effective fire protection required adequate access for fire engines, including sufficient open space within the plot. The proviso permitting only 1.5 metres of side space for redevelopment plots up to 600 sq. m. was found inadequate even on the Court's own analysis of fire-engine access and maneuverability, and it created an arbitrary distinction between occupants of such plots and occupants of other buildings. The proviso was therefore inconsistent with Articles 14 and 21.

Conclusion: The second proviso to DCR 43(1)(A) is bad in law, and even for redevelopment proposals under DCR 33(7), at least 6 metres of accessible open space on one side within the plot must be maintained unless the stated alternative access conditions are met.

Final Conclusion: The settlement on the public parking dispute was accepted on the record, while the substantive regulatory questions were resolved by preserving the mandatory recreational open-space requirement and invalidating the inadequate fire-access relaxation, with the remaining issues left to planning considerations.

Ratio Decidendi: A regulatory provision that merely permits additional recreational space on a podium cannot override a mandatory minimum ground-level open-space requirement, and a fire-safety relaxation that denies adequate fire-engine access within the plot is invalid for violating equality and life protection.

---