Consultation Paper on Town Planning Bill
Response by the Hong Kong Coalition of Service Industries
December 1996

General

1. Land use planning has been an important matter of public interest in Hong Kong and will become even more important in future, with increasing population pressure accompanied by a shortage of land. We welcome the opportunity for discussion on Hong Kong's planning process through the Consultation Paper on the Town Planning Bill.
2. We endorse the broad rationale of the White Bill in trying to maintain a balance between greater public involvement in the planning process on the one hand, and greater effectiveness and efficiency in the planning and development process on the other. The need for greater accountability and transparency is recognised but this should be balanced by a consideration of the cost implication to developers and consumers. Within this broad principle we wish to emphasise, from the business sector's point of view, the importance of certainty and consistency of the development process, both for developers and consumers. Without certainty developers will tend to concentrate their efforts in development on new land and the process of urban renewal will be slowed down as a result.

Plan making process

3. Planning Studies - At present planning studies are only made available to members of the Town Planning Board and then only on a consultative basis. It has been proposed in the White Bill that major studies should be published for public consumption for 3 months. We support this as it would improve transparency of the process.
4. Plan hearing process - Under the White Bill, members of the public will be able to make representations to gazetted plans whether in support or opposition to the plan. This will inevitably prolong the process of considering the plans. Notwithstanding the nine-months stipulation for a decision to be made on the plan by the Executive Council, the possibility of freezing development would increase risks and hence create uncertainty for developers. This could be aggravated by possible amendments to the plans, each new amendment bringing in another nine-months of uncertainty.
5. Although the public would be alerted to representations on the plans through the gazette process those owners who are directly affected by adverse representations should, as a matter of course, be specifically alerted by the planning authority.

Planning control

6. There does not seem to be an overwhelming need for the proposed planning certificate system to be introduced over and above the existing means of control which includes the Building Ordinance. Instead the planning certificates could have the result of introducing further uncertainty if it became another avenue of imposing conditions on development projects thus delaying development.
7. If a planning certificate system is to be introduced, it should not be more than a rationalising of existing practice. It should not apply only to the private sector but should be applicable also to government projects. An alternative is for the certificate to be made optional, the decision to apply for it being left to the developer. In any case, for a planning certificate to be useful in practice, it should be valid for more than two years as suggested in the Bill. Since the certificate system is new, it would be helpful if government could provide sample planning certificate for indicative purpose to foster greater understanding.

Enforcement

8. We support the tougher stand in enforcement as proposed in the Bill.

Other issues

9. On the matter of special design areas, it is felt that urban and environmental design is a relatively subjective matter and it could become an area of concern if the designation of SDAs became an arbitrary exercise. We are interested in understanding more about how the designation will in practice be decided.
10. There is no provision in the Bill on compensation for resumption where the use of land is blighted as a result of government actions or proposals. This is a matter which would merit further discussion.

(ends)

¡@