Last week, I cited some examples and data to clarify certain myths about land. I have always sincerely hoped that we can engage in objective and rational exchanges and discussions on land use planning and supply based on facts and figures. The process of land use planning and development usually takes ten, twenty or even thirty years to complete, transcending generations and the term of a single Government. This is why we need to prepare for the future of Hong Kong with a pragmatic and professional mindset, without being encumbered by preconceptions, politics and populist concerns which send the long-term interests of Hong Kong to the back alley. Now I will talk about other arguments about land issues, and hope that the public can recognise the facts and seek pragmatic solutions together.
Battles needed to turn “potential sites” to “disposable sites”
Many comments on land issues have a misconception that every plot of land could be readily used for building flats or for other developments. In fact, there are a number of factors to be considered before a “potential site” can be turned into a site ready for high-density development. These include the size of the site, environmental planning, technical conditions, infrastructural support, etc. The process is usually a lengthy one because of the internal and statutory procedures such as various technical and impact assessments on traffic, environment (air, sewage, noise, odour, etc.), drainage, air ventilation, landscaping, ecology, trees, heritage and natural hillside hazards, etc. As for planning, we need to consider the development of the entire area in a holistic manner and the compatibility of the land use of the site with those of the surrounding, in order to achieve a viable, reasonable and cost-effective land use layout. Engineering works on the other hand involve studies, design, land formation, slope stabilisation, roads, drainage, sewerage, other public utilities, implementation of environmental impact mitigation measures, and the provision of transport and community facilities, etc.
The abovementioned technical assessments are to be reviewed and evaluated by relevant departments of the Government to ensure that any land development plan is practicable in all aspects without unacceptable impacts. The proposals for planning, environmental impact assessment, road works and drainage works also require statutory procedures and consultation with District Councils and other stakeholders. At present, much of the remaining land with development potential in Hong Kong involves private lots, squatters, brownfield operations, etc. Statutory procedures are necessary for resumption and clearance of such land for development in the public interest. We have to adhere to relevant policies when dealing with the occupants (on both government and private land), including providing applicable compensation and rehousing proposals for eligible occupants of surveyed squatter structures or licensed structures.
Take the ex-Burma Lines Military site (now known as Queen’s Hill site) as an example. The site sits entirely on government land and has an area of about 24 hectares. A major part of it has already been formed. However, detailed studies on solutions to drainage, sewage, traffic and environment issues, etc. are needed due to the lack of ancillary infrastructure in the area. We will also need to consider means of preservation and conservation for the graded historic buildings thereat. As such, although it is the Government’s aim to provide about 12 000 public housing units as soon as possible, there are still a lot of assessments and advance works to be done before statutory planning and other procedures for the relevant infrastructural and site works could be carried out. According to the development schedule which is going in full swing, it is estimated that the first phase of the Queen’s Hill site development will only be completed for population intake by 2020/21 the earliest. This shows the difficulty, effort and time required to turn a “potential site” into a “disposable site”.
Multi-pronged approach with short, medium and long term measures
For these reasons, the Government must consider the urgency of different needs and set priority when it comes to land development. The Government is adopting a multi-pronged strategy for land supply. On one hand, we will identify and accord priority to suitable sites in and on the fringe of urban areas and new towns. These include reserved government land, land under short-term tenancies, vacant government land, as well as “Green Belt” sites with relatively less buffering effect and low conservation value. We will also increase the development intensity of individual housing sites as appropriate where planning terms permit. As these sites are located at or close to the built-up areas, general infrastructural and technical problems can be addressed more easily. As a result, they can be made available for housing or other developments sooner to cope with the pressing short to medium term housing demands, especially for public housing.
At the same time, the Government will actively take forward railway projects and review the use of land along railway lines and its neighbouring areas in order to identify land for development, such as Siu Ho Wan Depot. In addition, we will focus on some large-scale land use planning and development projects, such as Kwu Tung North and Fanling North New Development Areas (NDAs), Tung Chung New Town Extension, Hung Shui Kiu NDA, and Yuen Long South development. It is hoped that through comprehensive planning, economies of scale of infrastructure and ancillary facilities can be achieved, and various large-scale sites can be provided for medium to long term developments.
With a view to optimising the use of brownfield sites, unleashing land potential and improving rural environment, it is a clear option for us to consolidate and release brownfield sites for development. In recent months, there have been doubts and misconceptions about the development of brownfield sites. It will take lengthy discussions to go into details, and I will do this in another blog entry.
To develop fragmented sites, vacant land or “Village Type Development” zones?
In past discussions on land use planning and development, there were often views suggesting that brownfield sites, which were scattered, smaller in scale and remote, could be developed individually, and tens of thousands of flats could then be built if these sites were all used for public housing. Some also made reference to information provided by the Government in the past on unleased and unallocated government land and claimed that there are currently 4 000 hectares of vacant government land in urban/new development areas, and they are adequate to solve the problem of housing land shortage. Some even claimed that over a thousand hectares of government land could be released from “Village Type Development” zones in the New Territories for public housing development.
Frankly speaking, if such options were at all practicable, it would save my colleagues a lot of troubles. In reality, isolated development of individual fragmented sites distant from the developed areas and infrastructures, be they brownfield sites, “Green Belt” sites or other sites, may not be able to fit in the holistic planning of the particular district and may be incompatible with the surrounding land uses. If there are inadequate infrastructure and ancillary facilities, it will bring considerable technical difficulties and make it almost impossible to develop a self-sufficient community. It is not a proper arrangement at all for residents who will move in later. Furthermore, development of such fragmented sites would also have to go through various assessments and procedures, and infrastructural facilities would have to be enhanced for connection with existing systems. The lead time for developing these scattered sites may not be shorter, while the economies of scale may fall behind those of the large-scale land development projects being taken forward by the Government, which would in turn delay the progress of overall land supply.
Furthermore, in November 2012 we have made public the maps showing the unleased or unallocated government land. It can be seen clearly that most of the so-called “vacant government land” is just bare land between existing developments, slopes, etc. To optimise land utilisation, on-going land use reviews over the past few years have already allocated suitable sites for housing or other development purposes. “Village Type Development” zones, as stipulated on statutory plans, are scattered over various districts of the territory, mostly in recognised villages inhabited by indigenous villagers in the New Territories. In general, these “Village Type Development” zones coincide with existing Village Environs (including villages which had been relocated due to the development of new towns), on which there are often a considerable number of existing village houses. As these sites are scattered and only provided with limited infrastructure and ancillary facilities, they are in general not suitable for large-scale development.
You can’t have your cake and eat it
This week, the Government will announce “Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030”. Public consultation with regard to enhancing living quality, strengthening economic competitiveness and increasing land development space, etc. will be conducted. The sole purpose of discussing all those myths about land in Hong Kong here is to present the objective facts to the general public and let them take a rational view of the Government’s land use planning. Land development takes decades to complete. The Government does not have a magic wand to create land out of nothing and eliminate any adverse impact at the same time. Neither can we afford to leave land idle. All land supply options have pros and cons, and the society as a whole must make trade-offs. If we forego land use rezoning and increasing development intensity as appropriate, the cost will be a shortage in short to and medium term housing supply especially for public housing. If we decide to suspend or even shelve large-scale land development projects, the cost will be a dwindling land supply in the medium to long run, making it impossible to satisfy Hong Kong people’s demand for more land for housing, community facilities, economic activities, open space, etc. If we halt the strategic planning for Hong Kong’s future, the cost will be our long term development being constrained continually by land shortage.
The lesson learnt from the severe demand-supply imbalance in land and housing in the past decade and more is that land use planning and development require sustained efforts with foresight to prepare for future needs. As a responsible Government, we will continue to put forward comprehensive land supply strategies and take necessary steps progressively to alleviate the impacts of development in a practicable manner. The public will also be well engaged in our work during the course, so that their needs and expectations can be met. More importantly, we will undertake long-term planning at an early stage and build up a land reserve, to lay the foundation for the room and flexibility to take forward Hong Kong’s sustainable development and create favourable conditions for us to achieve our aspirations of “having a better and larger living place”. In this way, we will make Hong Kong a world metropolis even more suitable for living and businesses, and foster a better living environment for our next generation.
23 October, 2016
Back