Coastal Protection Area”
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BRIEF Town Planning Ordinance (Chapter 131) APPROVED STANLEY OUTLINE ZONING PLAN NO. S/H19/14 INTRODUCTION At the meeting of the Executive Council on 4 May 2021, the Council ADVISED and the Chief Executive ORDERED that the draft Stanley Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) No. S/H19/13A should be approved under section 9(1)(a) of the Town Planning Ordinance (the Ordinance). The plan is now renumbered as No. S/H19/14. AMENDMENTS TO THE APPROVED STANLEY OZP NO. S/H19/12 SINCE ITS REFERENCE BACK 2. Since the reference of the approved Stanley OZP No. S/H19/12 to the Town Planning Board (the Board) on 4 February 2020, the draft Stanley OZP No. S/H19/13 (the draft OZP) incorporating the amendments was exhibited on 5 June 2020 for public inspection under section 5 of the Ordinance. The major amendments were mainly made (i) to take forward an approved s.12A application No. Y/H19/1 for the proposed conservation-cum- development project at the Maryknoll House site, which was agreed by the Metro Planning Committee of the Board on 4 January 2019; (ii) to reflect the latest as-built conditions of the Stanley area; (iii) to make associated adjustment to the planning scheme boundary and zoning amendments, and (iv) to incorporate technical amendments to the plan and Notes of the approved Stanley OZP No. S/H19/12. Details of Amendment Items A to B3 are set out below: (a) rezoning of the Maryknoll House site from "Government, Institution or Community” ("G/IC") to "Other Specified Uses" annotated "Residential Development with Historic Building Preserved" ("OU(RDHBP)") with maximum plot ratio (PR) of 0.75, site coverage of 30% and building height restrictions (BHRs) of 64mPD/75mPD (Amendment Item A); (b) rezoning of a piece of land at the north-eastern portion of Stanley Ma Hang Park from "G/IC" to "Open Space" (Amendment Item B1); (c) inclusion of the eastern portion of Blake Pier into the planning scheme area and zone it as "Other Specified Uses" annotated "Pier" ("OU(Pier)") (Amendment Item B2); and (d) excision of a strip of sea to the west of Blake Pier zoned "OU(Pier)" from the OZP (Amendment Item B3). 3. The Explanatory Statement (ES) of the OZP was also revised in light of the relevant amendments. REPRESENTATIONS AND COMMENTS 4. During the public exhibition of the draft OZP, a total of 10 valid representations were received. On 18 August 2020, the representations were published for comment and 10 valid comments on representations (comments) were received. The representations and comments were heard by the Board at its meeting on 15 January 2021. The main grounds of the representations and comments together with the main points of the Board’s responses and decisions are highlighted in the following paragraphs. Representations 5. Among the representations received, 9 (R1 to R9) were supporting representations submitted by individuals (R1 to R8) and the New Season Global Limited (owner of the Maryknoll House site) (R9) on Amendment Item A. R9 also proposed some amendments to the plan, Notes and the ES of the draft OZP. A representation (R10) was submitted by an individual opposing Amendment Item A but supporting Amendment Items B1 to B3. Major grounds of the representations and proposals were summarised below - Supporting Representations Rezoning of the Maryknoll House site (Amendment Item A) (a) supported the rezoning of Maryknoll House (R1 to R9) to retain the character of Stanley (R2) or preserve the historic building (R1, R3 to R8); R5 also raised concerns on the access to Maryknoll House; (b) the BHR on the draft OZP should allow enough flexibility for better building design (R1 and R6); Other amendments to the OZP (Amendment Items B1 to B3) (c) supported Amendment Items B1 to B3 to reflect the as–built conditions of the sites (R10); Proposals from R9 (d) statutory requirement of planning permission from the Board for Page 2 any new development, or demolition of, addition, alteration and/or modification to or redevelopment of Maryknoll House as stipulated in the Remark (1) of the Notes for the “OU(RDHBP)” zone and the corresponding wording in the ES of the draft OZP should be removed as it would adversely affect the property rights of the owner (R9); (e) to relax the BHR of an area to the west of Maryknoll House from 64mPD to 71.4mPD to allow design flexibility (R9); (f) to remove the requirement for the provision of reasonable public access to Maryknoll House for public appreciation as stipulated in the ES of the draft OZP as it required passing through neighbouring property and could not be controlled solely by the owner of the Maryknoll House site. It was legally impossible to guarantee the provision of the public access (R9); and Adverse Representation Rezoning of the Maryknoll House site (Amendment Item A) (g) there were shortfalls in the provision of community care services (CCS) facilities, residential care homes for the elderly and child care centre in Stanley. As the essential community needs were not met, the proposed rezoning of a “G/IC” site was not supported (R10). Comments 6. A total of 10 valid comments were received from individuals. C1 to C8 supported R9 without providing any grounds while C9 supported R1 to R9 and considered that there was not enough private housing land and the Government should relax the PR restriction to address the shortage. C10 recapitulated the concerns on the provision of CCS facilities in the Stanley area. C1 to C8 and C10 were the original representers (i.e. R1 to R8 and R10). The Board’s Decision 7. On 15 January 2021, after giving consideration to the representations and comments, the Board noted the supportive views of R1 to R8, R9(part) and R10(part). The Board decided not to uphold R9 (part) and R10(part) and considered that the draft OZP should not be amended to meet the representations for the following reasons: (a) the Notes of the “OU(RDHBP)” was considered appropriate to ensure Page 3 proper planning controls for the in-situ preservation of Maryknoll House. It had struck a balance between the property right of the owner in the redevelopment and the need for preserving Maryknoll House. The removal of the Remark (1) of the Notes, which required planning permission from the Board for new development, or demolition of, addition, alteration and/or modification to or redevelopment of Maryknoll House, was not justified (R9); (b) the BHR of the “OU(RDHBP)” zone was considered appropriate to ensure the preservation of public views of southern and southwestern façades of Maryknoll House. There was also provision under the “OU(RDHBP)” zone for minor relaxation of the BHR to allow for design flexibility due to possible site constraints and innovative design. The proposal for relaxing the BHR upfront was considered not justified (R9); (c) the planning intention of “OU(RDHBP)” zone was primarily to preserve the historic building of Maryknoll House in-situ through the preservation-cum-development project. The ES of the OZP, which did not form part of the OZP, was intended to reflect the planning intention and the objectives of the Board for the zone. Should there be any problems in providing the public access, it could be dealt with at the s.16 planning application stage. The proposal for revising the ES was considered not necessary (R9); and (d) the ‘Social Welfare Facility’ use was always permitted under the “OU(RDHBP)” zone. As the site was privately owned, its use for any social welfare facilities was subject to the owner’s decision (R10). IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSALS 8. The approval of the draft OZP itself has no civil service and gender implications. Amendment Items B1 to B3, which were to reflect the latest as- built conditions of the Stanley area and make associated adjustment to the planning scheme boundary and zoning amendments, did not have any specific implications. Amendment Item A involving the rezoning of the Maryknoll House site from "G/IC” to "OU(RDHBP)" to facilitate the proposed conservation-cum-development project site has family, economic, financial, environmental and sustainability implications. 9. Amendment Item A will have positive family implications. It would facilitate the in-situ preservation of a Grade 1 historic building and residential development at the site upon approval by the Board. This will provide incentive for family formation. Preserving the heritage site would engender a sense of place and belonging, which may in turn enhance family harmony. 10. On economic implications, Amendment Item A would provide some land for residential development. While the proposed development parameters Page 4 at the site (i.e imposition of building height restriction of 64mPD/75mPD, maximum plot ratio of 0.75 and site coverage of 30%) will reduce the development potential and design flexibility of the site, this is the economic cost to be incurred for the benefit of meeting the public’s aspiration for heritage conservation and the need to ensure development/redevelopment at the site will be compatible with the surroundings. 11. Regarding financial implications, the site is a private lot and the construction cost of the preservation-cum-development project will be fully borne by the owner. Depending on the detailed proposal to be submitted at the later s.16 application stage, lease modification procedure may be required and the overall land revenue implication is yet to be determined at this stage. 12. Regarding environmental implications, the proposed development at the Maryknoll House site will be required to be planned, designed, constructed and implemented in accordance with the environmental guidelines and criteria laid down in the Environment Chapter of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines.