32. The Chairman concluded that the Council fully
supported the proposed incentive scheme in view of its benefits
in the improvement of the air quality. He requested the Administration
to report the progress of the scheme in due course.
Agenda Item 5 : South Lantau & Mui Wo Development Feasibility
Study
(ACE Paper 45/2001)
33. The Chairman welcomed STP(SR)/PlanD and SE(HKI&I)/TDD
to the meeting. STP(SR)/PlanD briefed Members on the
proposed study.
34. A Member said that given the rich natural resources
in South Lantau and the proximity to the future Disneyland
theme park, there was great potential for tourism development
in the study area. He was disappointed that the Administration
did not take a more proactive approach in planning the land-use
of South Lantau and Mui Wo. The study seemed to limit the
development of the area to a certain estimated population
figure. He urged the Administration to adopt a more committed
approach in planning the use of the study area, targeting
at more economic opportunities as far as possible.
35. A Member shared that Member's view. He said that
from the way the study was presented to the Council, it seemed
that the Government had no idea on how the study area should
be developed and totally relied on the recommendations of
the consultants. He pointed out that if the Government was
determined to turn the area into a major tourist attraction,
clear directives should be given to the consultants.
36. In response, STP(SR)/PlanD said that the study
was based on the South West New Territories Recommended Development
Strategy (RDS) in which the main objective for the development
for South Lantau was to balance development with tourism and
conservation needs. According to the RDS, the indicative population
in Mui Wo was about 17,000, which would be subject to changes
in subsequent further detailed studies. She thanked Members
for their comments and said that the Administration would
keep an open mind on the development potential of South Lantau
while taking into account aspirations of the general public
in due course. SE(HKI&I)/TDD supplemented that while
bearing in mind the conservation need, one of the aims of
the study was to establish a tourism development framework,
to identify potential attractions and recommend proposals
and facilities in that respect.
37. A Member did not agree with the reason stated
in para. 2 of the paper that the development of South Lantau
was brought about by the improved accessibility of the region
arising from the transport infrastructure in North Lantau.
He was of the opinion that the infrastructure was required
because the Government intended to develop that area. He believed
that Hong Kong had greater potential than many other countries
to develop into a resort node and suggested the Administration
to emphasize that point to the consultants.
38. A Member shared the sentiments of Members and
said that the Government should take the lead and show its
commitment to develop South Lantaut into an international
tourist spot. He reckoned that the plan could always be refined
during the consultation process.
39. A Member appreciated the goodwill of the Government
to balance the land-use for conservation, tourism and recreation
purposes. She pointed out that there were a great variety
of tourism trends. The development of the study area should
not be limited to only one of the trends. Instead a wide selection
should be offered in the planning process, including education
value of the area, environmental transportation such as ferry
services, and residential development similar to that in Discovery
Bay.
40. A Member pointed out that there were prisons and
drug rehabilitation centres in the study area which were not
compatible to the proposed land-use. She asked whether those
institutions would be re-located and their sites be re-developed.
In response, STP(SR)/PlanD said that they would request
the consultants to address this in the study, taking into
account other considerations of locating these correctional
institutions.
41. The Chairman suggested that the study should also
consider establishing a boarding school which was at present
not available in Hong Kong.
42. As a general response to Members' comments, SE(HKI&I)/TDD
said it was not true that the Administration had no idea on
how the study area should be developed. In the light of the
SWNT Recommended Development Strategy, the Administration
had a clear vision that the Study Area should be developed
along a balanced development and conservation approach in
accordance with the principle of sustainable development.
The Administration also recognized the unique characteristics
of South Lantau being a relatively well conserved area in
a high quality environment, and its potential in fulfilling
a diversity of recreation, tourism and leisure needs. This
was also one of the reasons Soko Islands were included in
the Study Area. The Study Brief was clear in those directives,
including strengthening tourist attractions, and the consultants
were to come up with implementable plans as to how those objectives
could be achieved.
43. In response to the Chairman's enquiry on the study programme,
STP(SR)/PlanD and SE(HKI&I)/TDD said that they
had already consulted the Town Planning Board on the scope
and objectives of the study. The study was expected to commence
in mid-2002. Phase I of the study would involve a 13-month
planning stage and a 8-month studies on the preliminary engineering
feasibility and environmental impact assessment. PlanD would
draw up the Recommended Outline Development Plan upon the
completion of the consultation on the Preliminary Outline
Development Plan. Priority areas would be identified under
Phase II of the study and detailed assessments would be carried
out for those areas.
44. The Chairman thanked STP(SR)/PlanD and SE(HKI&I)/TDD
for briefing the Council.
Agenda Item 6 : Second Public Consultation on the Consultancy
Study "Urban Design Guidelines for Hong Kong"
(ACE Paper 46/2001)
45. The Chairman welcomed AD(Metro)/PlanD and CTP/PlanD
to the meeting. AD(Metro)/PlanD gave a short briefing
on the proposed guidelines and major urban design issues as
outlined in consultation digest.
46. The Chairman commented on the obtrusive impact
of the chopstick-like twin buildings which were under construction
at Stubbs Road and the wall effect created by buildings planned
in Cha Kwo Ling. He asked how those could be avoided under
the proposed guidelines. In response, AD(Metro)/PlanD
explained that the plot ratio of the twin buildings was lower
than the maximum ratio permitted under the Building Planning
Regulations (BPR). Their excessive height was because of no
height restriction in the lease or statutory town plan, and
the site coverage adopted by the developer was exceptionally
low. The consultation digest had recommended options such
as suitable height restrictions or minimum site coverage as
measures to address concerns on excessive heights. As regards
the wall effect of the planned buildings in Cha Kwo Ling,
AD(Metro)/PlanD pointed out that the intensity of those
buildings was lower than what was permitted under the BPR.
Nonetheless, since Cha Kwo Ling was a Comprehensive Development
Area, the detailed design of those buildings would be subject
to approval by the Town Planning Board.
47. A Member followed up on the Chairman's point and
said that if the development plot ratio on private land was
to be maintained, chopstick-like buildings could not be avoided
unless there were height restrictions. One possible solution
was to allow transfer of plot ratio to areas where development
of tall buildings would be accepted. In response, AD(Metro)/PlanD
said that the permitted plot ratio under BPR could still be
achieved under the currently proposed height profile which
was 30 to 40 storeys at the waterfront and over 60 storeys
inland. As no loss of plot ratio was involved, there was no
need for plot ratio transfer in this regard. Nonetheless,
Planning and Lands Bureau was considering the proposal of
transfer of plot ratio to achieve heritage preservation but
she anticipated that it would be a long process due to the
complexity of the issue. She further stressed that Government
had to face the dilemma of choosing between maximizing flexibility
for building designs/development and regulations on building
height to achieve specific urban design objective. One of
the purposes of the series of consultation exercises was to
solicit public opinions in the subject so that the Government
could formulate a set of guidelines with a view to striking
an optimum balance.
48. A Member supported the proposed guidelines but
urged the Administration to expedite the process lest the
ridgelines would be blocked before the guidelines and restrictions
were put into place. AD(Metro)/PlanD shared that Member's
concern and said that the consultation process was drawing
to a close.
49. A Member asked whether some forms of compensation
would be provided to the affected group whose development
rights would be threatened under the proposed guidelines.
AD(Metro)/PlanD said that it would become complicated
and cause delay in implementation once compensation was involved.
In deciding on the way forward the Administration would be
inclined to choose option that would not involve the issue
of compensation as far as possible.
50. A Member commended the PlanD's willingness to
listen to the views of all groups and considered the whole
process very educational. She suggested including environmental
health consideration in developing the guidelines as air porosity
contributed to part of the living quality. Also she suggested
strengthening the ridgeline/waterfront protection, by legislation
if necessary. She did not rule out the use of high-rise nodes
as landmarks but emphasized that they should be put in strategic
locations.
51. AD(Metro)/PlanD agreed with that Member's comments
and said that the consultation exercise had aroused the public
awareness of the issue of urban design. There was an almost
unanimous view of the need to ensure for attractive waterfront
development against the mountain backdrop but there were quite
diverse opinions on the mechanism to achieve preservation
of the ridgelines.
52. A Member noted that the existing ridgelines were
already "punctuated" but the proposal would still allow relaxation
on individual merits and accept punctuation effects at suitable
locations. He asked how the merits would be assessed. Noting
that developers of tall commercial buildings favoured location
in Central, he also asked that for the purpose of preserving
the ridgelines and the waterfront, whether the Administration
could designate other areas for high-rise buildings and provide
incentives to the developers to move to those areas.
53. In response, AD(Metro)/PlanD said that despite
their efforts in encouraging development of secondary commercial
nodes e.g. in new towns, developers still found the urban
area in particular, Central, more attractive. As for assessment
of design merits, PlanD was considering a proposal to designate
special design zones in landscape sensitive areas where development
proposals would be subject to approval by a special design
panel or sub-committee under the Town Planning Board.
54. A Member agreed that the ridgelines should be
maintained as far as practicable. However, having regard to
the limited flat land in Hong Kong and that some ridgelines
had already been "punctuated", he suggested that the designs
of buildings which were located outside the view corridors
should be considered under different criteria. AD(Metro)/PlanD
said that as reflected on P.34 of the consultation digest,
only areas within the view corridors would be subject to regulation
on building height. High rise node would be encouraged at
selected strategic location.
55. A Member commented that it would be difficult
for the Administration to achieve the ridgelines/waterfront
preservation purpose in the absence of restrictions on height
and site coverage. For example, there were originally two
more blocks at the centre of the Kowloon Station but later
the approved floor area was incorporated with that of other
buildings, making the latter taller than planned. From an
architect's point of view, he said that as long as the Government
spelt out the restrictions clearly, architects could find
their ways to meet the developers' requirements and at the
same time adhere to the restrictions. In addition, he would
like to see more members of the architecture profession to
be involved in the design vetting process. In response, AD(Metro)/PlanD
explained that the Kowloon Station fell outside the proposed
view corridors. The building height thereon could therefore
be relaxed. She agreed with that Member that height restrictions
were necessary to protect the ridgelines pending the location
of the vantage point and extent of ridgeline to be preserved.
56. In response to a Member's enquiry, AD(Metro)/PlanD
said that the major consideration of building designs in small
local areas outside the view corridors or vantage points was
preservation of local character instead of the ridgelines.
Pending availability of resources, PlanD could consider commissioning
detailed studies on the urban design framework of specific
local areas or individual neighborhoods with a view to preserving
special local characteristics.
57. In reply to the Chairman's question, AD(Metro)/PlanD
said that the guidelines would be finalized after the second
public consultation.
58. The Chairman thanked the PlanD for the presentation
and looked forward to receiving the finalized guidelines.
Agenda Item 7 : Any Other Business
Report on ACE's visit to Europe
59. Due to the time constraint, the Chairman proposed
to defer discussion on the report to the next meeting. He
also said that the report, if endorsed, would be passed to
the LegCo Panel on Environmental Affairs for reference.
Environment Seminar & Networking Reception
60. The Chairman informed Members that the British
Consul-General had invited the Council to an environment seminar
held that day on solid waste and wastewater management and
he had advised the Consul-General that the seminar clashed
with the meeting. However, Members could join the Networking
Reception to be held later that evening if they so wished.
Agenda Item 8 : Date of Next Meeting
61. The next meeting was scheduled for Monday, 17 December
2001.
ACE Secretariat
December 2001
|