Over the past two years or so we, together with colleagues from other government departments, have been visiting various districts and District Councils (DCs) to solicit support for a series of holistic measures to increase land supply in the short-, medium- and long-term. Some concerns and views at the district level might have taken us a while to handle or respond to, while some cases have achieved “win-win solutions through mutual understanding”. Nonetheless, a small number of individuals or groups in the community disagree with the Government on the measures to increase housing land supply, and try to stall their implementation. Thus, the timely implementation of measures and the timely supply of land and housing are subject to uncertainty. I would like to share some examples with you.
Soon after assuming office, the current-term Government proposed to rezone 36 Government, Institution or Community (GIC) sites for residential use. The On Chun Street site in Ma On Shan Area 100 was one of 10 sites among the first batch of sites to be rezoned. The local community opposed the rezoning as they were worried that new buildings would affect air flow, and that there was a lack of local community facilities. The Planning Department had in-depth communication with the local DC members to examine the land use situation of other nearby sites. After rounds of discussions, the rezoning of two other GIC sites was proposed. This rezoning proposal eventually gained the support of the local community and the two sites were successfully tendered in the market. This is a good example of the Government working together with the community to solve problems through joint efforts.
Another example is the rezoning of two short-term open car park sites on Lei Yue Mun Path. We proposed to rezone the site for residential use in 2013. During local consultation we obtained the DC’s in-principle support for the rezoning proposal. However, the operators of nearby restaurants strongly opposed the rezoning for fear that closure of the car parks would reduce the number of parking spaces and affect their business. They staged a strike to express their discontent. After some DC members and Legislative Council (LegCo) members relayed the operators’ concerns and worries to the Development Bureau (DEVB), the departments concerned conducted a site visit to explore feasible measures to minimise the impact on the operators. The proposals included (1) increasing the number of public parking spaces to be provided in the future development by 84 per cent (to 250) to meet the future long-term parking demand; (2) requiring the developer, through land sale conditions, to provide at least 150 parking spaces within 33 months after the land sale to shorten the affected period, as well as requiring the public car park to provide only hourly parking spaces during peak hours to meet parking demand in the Lei Yue Mun tourism area; (3) using a smaller GIC site in the vicinity as a temporary car park during the transition period; and (4) slightly increasing parking spaces by rationalising nearby temporary car parks . Although these proposals could not completely make up for the reduction in the number of parking spaces during the construction period, the operators showed understanding about the shortage of housing land in Hong Kong and appreciated the Government’s efforts to solve their problems and minimise the impact on them. Subsequently, they accepted the Government’s proposals having regard to the overall interest of the community. The site was successfully tendered for residential development incorporated with a public car park. This was a fruitful result obtained by “making a breakthrough and jointly solving problems”.
A third example is the property development project at the West Rail Yuen Long Station. The Master Layout Plan of the project was approved by the Town Planning Board (TPB) some 12 years ago in early 2002. In the 2007 Policy Address, it was announced that the design scheme of the project would be reviewed so as to address the concerns of the local residents and the DC about development intensity. A revised scheme was proposed in the following year, which included deleting two residential blocks and reducing the overall plot ratio. However, the locals and stakeholders requested a further reduction in development intensity, the provision of more greenery and air flow enhancement.
The 2011-12 Budget announced that six property development projects along the West Rail, for which the master layout and building plans had already been approved, would be redesigned so as to comply with the guidelines on quality and sustainable building design taking effect in the same year, and also that the supply of small and medium-sized flats would be increased.
In 2013, the Government proposed a new design scheme with substantial revisions (compared with the approved scheme of 2005), including: (1) deleting three residential blocks, reducing the overall building bulk, widening the building gaps to improve air flow and increasing at-grade greening area; (2) significantly reducing the development intensity to a plot ratio of 3.99, which was much lower than the original plot ratio of 5, and reducing the total number of flats from 2 214 to 1 876 units, 70 per cent of which would be small and medium-sized flats with a saleable area of 50 square metres or less; (3) providing a landscaped open plaza of 1 200 square metres, and increasing the overall site coverage of greenery to 20 per cent; (4) reserving a floor area of 1 200 square metres to provide an integrated children and youth services centre and an integrated family services centre to serve the local community, and (5) adjusting the road traffic and the footbridge network arrangements.
However, during the consultation period, the Owners’ Corporation of the nearby Sun Yuen Long Centre (SYLC) strongly opposed the new scheme and made a couple of difficult requests. Fortunately, with the help of the DC member of the constituency concerned as well as other DC and LegCo members, their requests were consolidated into three main ones for various departments to resolve. Having examined and considered the matters, the departments concerned came up with the following revisions to the scheme: (1) relocating the roadside bus stop and mini bus terminus; (2) converting a section of the road into a pedestrian walkway in response to the residents’ request; (3) converting the road connecting to the SYLC into a public vehicular road, which would be handed over to the Government for management and maintenance upon completion. This is an example of seeking “win-win solutions through mutual understanding”. In the end, the residents’ concerns and requests were positively addressed and resolved while the development scheme successfully obtained TPB approval. Some LegCo/DC members subsequently wrote to the DEVB to thank our colleagues for their efforts in actively following up on and resolving the residents’ problems. Nonetheless, it is disappointing that the project is still being hindered. Despite the fact that the development proposal finally gained the support of nearby residents after several rounds of revisions, some individuals are still trying to stall the implementation of the project by judicial review. Consequently the project cannot be rolled out to the market to address the housing needs of the community.
The current-term Government has been rezoning land use, where suitable, to increase housing land supply in the short and medium term. However, the rezoning proposals have faced considerable resistance at the district level and in some cases are hindered by individual judicial review attempts or similar means. Every available site is hard earned. Nonetheless, our colleagues in the DEVB and its departments will continue to adopt the same attitude in dealing with the three cases mentioned above, and work hard with affected residents to seek win-win solutions to increase housing land supply. We hope the opposing parties can find empathy with those anxiously waiting for a home and give everyone involved a reasonable solution.
8 February, 2015
Back