News Stories:

Click-on these handy "jump links" to quickly access the news item
you're looking for.

1. Developer fights theme park rejection in court

1. Developer fights theme park rejection in court
Jonathan Li, The Standard 17 February 2005

A private property developer has asked the High Court to compel the Town Planning Board to reconsider its October 2003 rejection of a proposed "Old Hong Kong'' theme park along the waterfront in Quarry Bay.

The planned 12,000 square meter property development - comprising a hotel, entertainment and commercial buildings - is the brainchild of privately held property developer Pacific Concord Holding. In launching its legal challenge on Wednesday, Fine Tower Associates, a subsidiary of Pacific Concord Holding, contends that the Town Planning Board acted unfairly at a September 2003 hearing when it failed to inform the company about additional material it received from the government before arriving at the unfavorable decision a month later.

Pacific Concord and its subsidiary first filed an application with the board in September 2000 seeking approval for the proposed theme park and relaxation of building height restrictions.

The application was rejected in March 2003 following a series of revisions.

The company subsequently scaled back the proposed development.

Nevertheless, its application was rejected late last month on the grounds that the scope of the proposed development was still enormous.

Pacific Concord acquired the Quarry Bay waterfront property in 1993 for HK$300 million, with the intention of building an oil depot.

However, the oil depot plan was blocked by the government for safety reasons.

Since then, the company has been engaged in a drawn-out application process with the board in a bid to convert the land use of the waterfront property.

At Wednesday's hearing, Concord Pacific counsel Philip Dykes said the board failed to inform the company about legal advice it received from the Lands Department and Secretary of Justice shortly after the September 2003 hearing.

He contended that in doing so the board acted unfairly in arriving at the October 2003 decision.

He also argued that the imposition of planning controls amounted to a ``de facto expropriation of property'' which could give rise to a right to compensation.

The hearing continues.