For Hong Kong's future development and our younger generation, the Chief Executive, Mr C Y Leung, in his first Policy Address, has adopted a new perspective on the issue of land supply - a perspective in which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government is determined to develop new land extensively and build up a land reserve. However, before and after the delivery of the Policy Address, individual members of the community have again voiced their opinions that the Government has chosen a difficult path by developing the North East New Territories and levelling hills and reclaiming land from the sea. They advocate that priority should be accorded to the development of more than 800 hectares (ha) of damaged land in the North West New Territories (e.g. sites used as recycling or container yards). They also propose to first exhaust the 391.5 ha of "vacant government land" published last year.
Regarding the so-called "choosing a difficult path instead of an easy one", how easy is the easy path in reality? Is the difficult path really difficult? I would like to provide you with some data and study findings, so that you can have a more thorough understanding of the above two viewpoints rather than be misled by some repeating incorrect points.
(1) Development of brownfield sites
Currently, there is no official or standardised definition of brownfield sites in Hong Kong. The term generally refers to the developed land, or agricultural and industrial land which is deserted or damaged and currently used as open storage, container yards and workshops in the New Territories.
In 2007, the HKSAR Government published the Hong Kong 2030 Study, at which time effective use of brownfield sites had been advocated. Quite a number of the then brownfield sites on private land in the New Territories were used as open storage and container yards, while some were used for residential dwellings and cultivated land. In general, brownfield sites are relatively remote with inadequate infrastructure facilities. Therefore, to better utilise these sites for major development, the Government has to formulate an overall development plan and upgrade the infrastructure facilities.
In fact, the Government has already conducted reviews and planning studies on how to optimise the use of brownfield sites. In the last round of review of Green Belt areas which are devegetated, deserted or formed in the New Territories, land which is no longer serving the intended function has been identified to be rezoned to residential use. It is proposed in the Stage 1 review that land with a total area of 57 ha should be rezoned. The Policy Address has also pointed out that the Planning Department will expedite the review of about 257 ha of agricultural land in North District and Yuen Long currently used mainly for industrial purposes or temporary storage, or which is deserted, including some 48 ha which are used for open storage and port back-up purposes. It is hoped that suitable land within the 257 ha of areas under review can be released for housing development. Some 250 ha of land which are used for open storage or port back-up purposes have been included in the Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area for which the second stage Public Engagement (PE) exercise is to be launched. The Stage 3 PE exercise for the North East New Territories New Development Areas (NENT NDAs) was completed last year. The study area of the NENT NDAs involves quite a number of sites that are used as open storage, or land which is rural industrial land and deserted agricultural land. Furthermore, we will also examine how much land within the Kam Tin South West Rail Kam Sheung Road Station, the Pat Heung Maintenance Depot and the adjoining areas of about 110 ha (some 10 ha of which are used for open storage and port back-up purposes) can be rezoned for housing development. As mentioned in the Policy Address, a new study on New Territories North (involving quite a number of brownfield sites) will be launched.
Many open storage and recycling yards and port back-up facilities mentioned above are licensed. They provide logistics support services for the logistics industry and create employment opportunities for the local community. However, some of their operations are not suitable for urban areas or multi-storey buildings. As such, to better develop these sites, the Government should consolidate these uses through comprehensive planning and refine land utilisation to achieve an effective use of land resources and improve the rural environment. In addition, in implementing planning, time consuming clearance and re-housing exercises as well as complicated land resumption and compensation issues will also be involved. This is absolutely not as easy and simple as the proponents may have imagined. It requires careful consideration and comprehensive public engagement, to which the principle used for developing NDAs will equally apply. Therefore, the notion that the NENT NDAs proposal can be shelved and the above brownfield sites can be developed first is a specious one.
(2) Idle land
In reply to questions by Members of the Legislative Council last year, I explained clearly the meaning of the area of the 391.5 ha of "vacant government land" said to be suitable for residential use. I would like to reiterate that this figure refers to the total area of unleased or unallocated government land which is zoned "Residential" or "Commercial/Residential" according to the statutory plans of Hong Kong excluding roads or passageways, man-made slopes, land allocated under the Simplified Temporary Land Allocation procedures and fragmented sites. To make it open and transparent, the locations of all these sites have already been uploaded to the website of the Development Bureau for public information.
Technical assessments are required for these sites to ascertain their development feasibility, such as studies of the adequacy of related infrastructural facilities, compatibility with neighbouring land uses and other factors. The Government will review and assess the development feasibility of these sites under the established mechanism. Upon completion of studies for a plot of land, we will include the site in the Application List for land sale as soon as possible. In fact, 19 of these sites, with a total area of about 18.9 ha, have been included in the 2012-13 Application List. For the remaining sites, a number of them have irregular shapes (e.g. empty space between buildings, back lanes, and narrow strips of land alongside existing developments, highways or other amenities) which may not be suitable for housing development. Therefore, it is simply unrealistic to assume that all these sites can be made available for development and that, by simply applying a higher plot ratio to suggest that, 240,000 flats could be built on these sites. Imagine this. If this suggestion is really implemented, it means that we would have to squeeze a large number of high-density residential blocks into the spaces between existing high-rise buildings. Is that in line with our basic planning principles?
I would like to reiterate that I will seriously consider any proposals which can increase land supply and optimise the use of existing land. If members of the public or organisations have identified any sites which can be made available for actual planning and use, please give us your valuable views. Together, we can move forward.
20 January, 2013
Back