• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

TOWN PLANNING BOARD Minutes of 500th Meeting of the Metro Planning Committee held at 9:00 a.m. on 8.11.2013 Present Director of Planning Chairman Mr K. K. Ling Professor S.C. Wong Vice-chairman Professor P.P. Ho Professor Eddie C.M. Hui Mr Clarence W.C. Leung Mr Laurence L.J. Li Mr Roger K.H. Luk Mr H.W. Cheung Mr Sunny L.K. Ho Mr Dominic K.K. Lam Mr Patrick H.T. Lau Assistant Commissioner for Transport (Urban), Transport Department Mr W.B. Lee - 2 - Principal Environmental Protection Officer (Metro Assessment), Environmental Protection Department Mr Ken Wong Assistant Director (Hong Kong), Lands Department Ms Doris Chow Deputy Director of Planning/District Secretary Miss Ophelia Y.S. Wong Absent with Apologies Mr Maurice W.M. Lee Ms Julia M.K. Lau Ms Bonnie J.Y. Chan Mr Stephen H. B. Yau Mr Frankie Chou, Chief Engineer (Works) HAD In Attendance Assistant Director of Planning/Board Ms Brenda K.Y. Au Chief Town Planner/Town Planning Board Mr Edward W. M. Lo Town Planner/Town Planning Board Miss Hannah H.N. Yick - 3 - Agenda Item 1 Confirmation of the Draft Minutes of the 499th MPC Meeting held on 25.10.2013 [Open Meeting] 1. The draft minutes of the 499th MPC meeting held on 25.10.2013 were confirmed without amendments. Agenda Item 2 Matters Arising [Open Meeting] (i) Amendment to Confirmed Minutes of 489th MPC meeting held on 24.5.2013 2. The Secretary reported that on 24.5.2013, the Committee decided to approve a section 16 application No. A/K15/111. The English version of the minutes was confirmed at the meeting on 7.6.2013 and sent to the applicant‟s representative on the same day. The Chinese version of the minutes was sent to the commenters on 23.10.2013. 3. On 5.11.2013, the Town Planning Board Secretariat received an email from the Hong Kong Society for Rehabilitation, which was a commenter on the aforementioned application. The Hong Kong Society for Rehabilitation requested that the minutes be amended to state clearly that they had no objection to the application but only raised concerns on the application. To take account of their request, the second sentence of paragraph 109(d) of the minutes was proposed to be revised as follows: “One comment was submitted by the adjacent Hong Kong Society for Rehabilitation, stating no objection but raising concerns about the road safety arising from construction vehicles and requested the applicant to take appropriate measures to protect the road surface and control the noise level during the construction period.” Members agreed to the proposed amendments and that the revised minutes should be sent to relevant parties including the concerned commenter accordingly. - 4 - Hong Kong District Agenda Item 3 Section 12A Application [Open Meeting (Presentation and Question Sessions only)] Y/H17/1 Application for Amendment to the Draft Shouson Hill & Repulse Bay Outline Zoning Plan No. S/H17/12 from “Residential (Group C) 3” to “Residential (Group C) 10” with a Maximum Building Height of 187.82mPD and 3 storeys including Carports, 3 Deep Water Bay Road, Hong Kong (MPC Paper No. Y/H17/1 ) 4. Mr H.W. Cheung declared an interest in this application as he was involved in approving the building plans of the Lynx Hill development at the subject site which had already been demolished. Members considered Mr Cheung‟s interest was indirect and agreed that he could stay in the meeting. Applicant’s Request for Deferment 5. The Secretary reported that after the issue of MPC Paper on 5.11.2013, the applicant wrote to the Secretary and requested the Board to defer the consideration of the application for three months and requested the Committee to instruct PlanD to release detailed information associated with the planning assessment in the Paper. This was the second deferment request submitted by the applicant. The applicant‟s letter dated 5.11.2013 was tabled at the meeting. 6. The Secretary said that according to the Town Planning Board (TPB) Guidelines No. 33 on Deferment of Decision on Representations, Comments, Further Representations and Applications made under the Town Planning Ordinance, the applicant‟s deferral request should be considered against the criteria of whether the request for deferment was supported by reasonable grounds, whether the right or interest of other concerned parties would be affected and whether the period of deferment was indefinite. Members were requested to note that a copy of the MPC paper was issued to the applicant seven days before the - 5 - scheduled meeting in accordance with the Procedure and Practice of TPB; the applicant was living in the vicinity of the application site and was not the owner of the site; and as a general practice, should the Board accede to the request, a two-month instead of three-month deferment period would be granted. The Secretary further explained that as the deferral request was received after the issue of Paper, the Committee would normally invite the applicant to explain the reasons for deferral request before the Committee. After considering the applicant‟s explanation, the Committee would then decide whether to accede to the deferral request or not. [Mr Clarence Leung arrived to join the meeting at this point.] Presentation and Question Sessions 7. The following representatives from Planning Department (PlanD) were invited to the meeting at this point: Ms Ginger Kiang - District Planning Officer/Hong Kong (DPO/HK) Ms Isabel Y. Yiu - Senior Town Planner/Hong Kong (STP/HK) 8. The following applicant‟s representatives were invited to the meeting at this point: Mr Kenneth To Mr David Fok 9. The Chairman extended a welcome and explained that as the applicant‟s deferral request was received after the issue of the Paper, the Committee would invite the applicant‟s representatives to explain the reasons of asking for a deferral of the consideration of the application prior to making a decision on the deferral request. Upon the Chairman‟s invitation, Mr Kenneth To explained the applicant‟s reasons for the deferral request as followed: (a) when the applicant received the MPC Paper last week, it was noted that the application site fell within a Special Control Area (SCA) No. SCA/H16/1. - 6 - In the previous correspondence with PlanD to receive comments from government departments and the public, this SCA had not been mentioned. Although the Explanatory Statement (ES) of the Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) mentioned about the intention of the SCA was to preserve the existing amenities and character of the area as well as significant public views, the applicant considered that his application was in line with the intention. However, it was noted in the Paper that the application site should not be singled out from other sites zoned “Residential (Group C)” (“R(C)”) within the SCA in respect of building height (BH) restriction. The applicant would like to have more time to study the history of the SCA and the rationale of no differential treatment within the SCA which actually covered an extensive area extending to Deep Water Bay and Repulse Bay; (b) the Paper mentioned the Practice Note for Authorised Persons, Surveyors and Registered Structural Engineers (PNAP) issued by the Lands Administration Office, Lands Department (LandsD) on Design, Disposition and Height (DDH) clause. The Paper indicated that there would be sufficient control on BH restriction of the site under the PNAP and hence there was no need to amend the OZP restriction. The applicant would like to research on examples to demonstrate whether the concerned PNAP was effective to control the BH of a development; and (c) the Paper mentioned that a set of building plans (BP) with a BH of 191.56mPD was approved by the Buildings Department (BD). However, the public had no access to the approved BP. The applicant would like to know more about the details of this set of BP and how it would not adversely affect the landscape character of the area. 10. In response to a Member‟s question, Ms Ginger Kiang, DPO/HK, replied that the facts that the restrictions of “Residential (Group C)” (“R(C )”) zone were based on those imposed administratively by the Government in the SCA as well as the intentions of the SCA were stated in the ES of the OZP, and a copy of the Final Report of a Comprehensive Review of Special Control Areas was available for public inspection at the Planning Enquiry Counters of PlanD. The concerned PNAP of LandsD on DDH was available for public - 7 - viewing on LandsD‟s website. For BPs, only approved BPs of completed developments with occupation permits issued would be available for public inspection as BPs involved private information. 11. As the applicant‟s representatives had no further points to raise and there were no further questions from Members, the Chairman informed the applicant‟s representatives and PlanD‟s representatives that the Committee would deliberate on the deferral request in their absence. They left the meeting at this point. Deliberation 12. The Chairman said that the applicant treated some background information provided in the Paper as „new information‟ and considered more time was required to study the information as a justification for his request for a deferral of the consideration of the application. Such arguments were not convincing and were not acceptable. Should the Committee agree to this deferral request, it would set an undesirable precedent for future cases. 13. A Member considered that the justifications of the applicant were unfounded as the first two documents mentioned by the applicant were public documents available for public inspection.

Load more

  51

Copy Link