Recently, there have been many comments on the property market in the community, with some speculating that the Government will slow down the pace of increasing land supply. My response to them is very simple: “No, definitely not.” Increasing land supply is the fundamental solution to Hong Kong’s housing problem and, in turn, will promote Hong Kong’s economic and social development. The Development Bureau will continue to forge ahead with the work on this front. Land use rezoning is one of our key areas of work in the short run.
Land use rezoning
As announced in the Policy Address, the Government will rezone 152 sites which would be made available in the coming five years to provide about 210 000 public and private residential flats. Land use rezoning has become more urgent and important in view of the need to meet the housing target of providing 470 000 residential flats in the coming 10 years to address the needs of the community. In the past few months, the Planning Department (PlanD) and relevant departments have been conducting district consultations on land use rezoning for housing development. Putting the overall interests of the whole community above their own, the Sha Tin, Tai Po and Kwun Tong District Councils (DCs) gave the green light to the land use rezoning proposals for individual sites in Ma On Shan, Pak Shek Kok, Tai Po and Sau Mau Ping, in addition to putting forward constructive ideas in this respect during the consultations. Their contributions are highly appreciated. On the other hand, rezoning proposals in certain districts have been met with objections recently. Some of the reasons for objection have provided food for thought.
We understand that it is not easy for all members of the community and various parties to unanimously accept our housing development proposals, and we acknowledge the concerns of the local people. When we consulted the Tuen Mun, Sham Shui Po, Kwai Tsing and Southern District DCs and the local communities, some DC members and residents shared with us their worries that the rezoning proposals might bring about adverse impacts on the traffic, infrastructural facilities, environment and landscape in the districts and might render the community supporting facilities and open space not sufficient. Some feared that the rezoning of Green Belt (GB) sites might involve the felling of trees on a large scale and therefore would affect the natural environment, while some suggested that land should only be rezoned for public housing development but not for private residential use, as the latter could not address the urgent housing needs of the community.
Endeavouring to minimise the potential impacts to the community
We understand the concerns of the local community and will continue to work hard to give clear explanations to them. I would like to briefly respond to a few concerns here. Before rezoning proposals are made, PlanD and other works departments will assess whether the related transport and infrastructural facilities, as well as supporting facilities such as community facilities and open space, are capable of meeting the needs of the proposed new developments to ensure that no unacceptable impacts will be caused to the environment, in accordance with a well-established and effective mechanism and criteria. If necessary, the related departments will conduct detailed technical assessments and implement corresponding mitigation measures to minimise the potential impacts on the environment, landscape, air ventilation and more that might be caused in the local district.
The 152 sites to be rezoned are distributed among 16 districts across the territory. Except in some individual districts such as Yuen Long, Tuen Mun, Tai Po and Tseung Kwan O, where the percentage of the increase in the overall residential flats and population is relatively more significant, the percentage of increase in most of the districts is rather low. As such, it is relatively easy to solve the compatibility problem of traffic and community facilities. We will endeavour to minimise any impacts that might be brought about while seeking sites for housing development. I hope the DCs and the local community will understand that, in reality, some impacts would be inevitable. Nevertheless, in order to address the pressing need to improve the living environment of the majority of the community, all of us should contribute our part and put the overall interests of the community above our own.
Turning to GB sites, I have repeated many times that the current reviews on GB sites focus mainly on those sites that are located in the fringe of developed land and are close to existing transport infrastructure, and with a relatively lower conservation value. Given that production of land for development in the medium to long term (including brownfield sites and new development areas) has yet to be ready and the options of land supply in the short to medium term are limited, it is only natural to consider developing sites in the fringe of existing built-up areas to extend the urban areas and provide more residential sites, on the premise of not affecting country parks and important ecological conservation sites. As for tree preservation, the Government has to comply with relevant greening guidelines and tree conservation mechanisms to ensure that replanting of trees and transplanting of valuable trees are properly arranged. Talking about the Greening Master Plans in My Blog two weeks ago, I explained that, while forging ahead with our housing development, the Government will continue to work hard on greening work and increase the greening ratio so as to enhance our the living environment.
Striking the right balance between public and private housing
Regarding the controversy over the allocation of public and private housing, the Government has adopted the Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee’s recommendations on the housing target for the next 10 years, with 60 per cent of the target figure being public housing. We will allocate housing sites in strict accordance with this ratio to ensure adequate land supply for public housing development. At the same time, we will also ensure a steady land supply to the market for development of private housing. The Government has in place an established internal mechanism to assess the kind of housing development suitable for each individual site according to a number of factors, such as site location, site area, the surrounding environment, development intensity, transport facilities and more. While striving to meet the community’s needs for public housing, we will remain vigilant and cater for the needs for private housing.
Providing more combinations of housing types will help balance and address the needs of people from different classes of the community, as well as enhance the vitality of the community. In fact, land use rezoning can increase our overall housing land supply. By debating over whether individual private residential sites can be rezoned for public housing, we are engaging ourselves in a zero-sum game. Raising objections against land use rezoning for any private residential development will only reduce the overall housing land supply. Rather than addressing the community’s sustained demand for private housing, it may aggravate the problem of the tilted balance between supply and demand in the private residential market which has been building up over the past few years, and may affect property prices.
In order to allay the concerns of the DCs and the local residents, we will maintain close liaison with the various departments to prepare more detailed information in response to community concerns, and conduct district consultations as appropriate. When consulting DCs in future, we will continue to give clear explanations as far as possible in order to solicit support from the local people. Last but not least, I would like to appeal once again to the DCs, local residents and other stakeholders to put the overall housing needs of the community above the interests of your districts and fully support our proposals for land use rezoning.
6 April, 2014
Back