1 $100b plan promises 40,000 building jobs
Paul Mozur and Beatrice Siu, The Standard 26 November 2008
A government proposal to spend HK$100 billion on construction projects to create jobs will soon be submitted to the Legislative Council for approval, legislators were told yesterday.
Secretary for Development Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor told a development panel meeting that 10 large infrastructure and community projects, such as the Central land reclamation, and other minor works are being planned.
The minor works would have a budget of HK$7.6 billion and these alone would create as many as 40,000 jobs.
She assured the panel there would be as few delays as possible but she also warned against making project slipups.
"We need to do these projects step by step - not hastily just to create jobs today, as that would mean a setback for Hong Kong in the long term," Lam said.
She said the Central Phase III development, with a budget of HK$30 billion, would add 10,000 jobs.
Frontier lawmaker Emily Lau Wai-hing said the jobs would be a welcome boost to the economy, especially with many Hong Kong workers returning from Macau. But she was also concerned about the large number of foreign workers, especially professionals, who will be given jobs.
"I know we have WTO agreements, but the grading can be decided by the government, so we can decide whether to give more opportunities to locals," Lau said.
Lam cited the need to retain the city's open and international job market but added: "Rest assured many jobs will go to locals." Hong Kong Construction Association president Conrad Wong Tin- cheung and Hong Kong Construction Industry Employees' General Union secretary Fung Kin-cho welcomed the move.
Wong said Lam has promised to look into the cash-flow difficulties of contractors and is studying the possibility of releasing the retention money for projects as soon as they are completed.
Retention money - from 0.75 to 5 percent of the total cost - is a sum held by the government to fix defects.
2 Linkage established between monument declaration and historic buildings grading system
Hong Kong Government, 26 November 2008
The Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) endorsed at its meeting today (November 26) a proposal to establish a formal relationship between the statutory monument declaration system and the administrative grading system for historic buildings of the AAB.
Under the present system, the Antiquities Authority, after consultation with the AAB and with the approval of the Chief Executive, may declare a place or a building as monument under section 3(1) of the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap 53).
On the other hand, over the years, the AAB with the assistance of the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) has been grading historic buildings, based on an administrative system which classifies buildings into Grade I, II and III. There has been no automatic linkage or direct correlation between the grading system and the monument declaration system.
"The introduction of a clear and transparent linkage between graded buildings and the statutory monument declaration system is timely as the AAB will shortly complete the grading of some 1,440 buildings in the territory after years of hard work," a Development Bureau spokesman said.
Under the endorsed arrangements:
* the list of Grade I buildings, defined as "buildings of outstanding merit, which every effort should be made to preserve if possible" will be regarded as providing a pool of highly valuable heritage buildings for consideration by the Antiquities Authority as to whether some of these may have reached the "high threshold" of monuments to be put under statutory protection;
* the Antiquities Authority is committed to actively considering each and every of the Grade I buildings for possible monument declaration. Given the resources required, the Authority will naturally have to prioritise the list of Grade I buildings for consideration, based on such factors as the buildings' heritage significance, demolition risks, the owners' and the public's aspirations, and ownership of the buildings; and
* the Commissioner for Heritage's Office will take the initiative to inform private owners of Grade I buildings the status and historical significance of their buildings; their eligibility to apply for financial assistance from Government for maintenance of their buildings; the likely Government intervention in case the buildings are under demolition threat, such as proposed monument declaration by the Antiquities Authority in order to provide immediate but temporary protection to their buildings; and a willingness to discuss with the owners possible economic incentives for the preservation of their buildings on a case-by-case basis depending on the merits of each case.
The spokesman explained that such a linkage would not oblige the Antiquities Authority to declare all Grade I buildings as monuments. The building to be declared as a monument must reach the "high threshold", and other factors will also need to be taken into account.
"The new framework has clearly defined the role of AAB and a relationship between grading and monument declaration. AAB will play an unequivocal role in offering advice to the Authority on monument declaration and to help provide a shortlist of candidates for monument declaration based on its administrative grading system.”
"It will promote better public understanding of the work of AAB and the relationship between the monument declaration system and the grading system," the spokesman said.
It is estimated that the initial results of grading of the 1,440 historic buildings will be available by early 2009.
3 LCQ9: Vetting and approving applications for the construction of small houses
Hong Kong Government, 26 November 2008
Following is a question by the Hon Lau Wong-fat and a written reply by the Secretary for Development, Mrs Carrie Lam, in the Legislative Council today (November 26):
Question:
Some indigenous villagers in the New Territories have conveyed to me that they are dissatisfied with the slow progress of the Lands Department in vetting and approving applications for the construction of small houses at present. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of the following in the past three years:
(a) the respective numbers of applications approved for the construction of small houses each year, as well as applications on the waiting list;
(b) the annual number of applications for payment of additional premiums for the removal of the restriction on alienation clause from the land lease of a small house, and the total amount of premiums received in such applications; and
(c) the administration costs involved in processing the applications?
Reply:
President,
My reply to the three-part question is as follows:
(a) The annual numbers of applications for small houses approved by the Government and applications for small houses on the waiting list for the past three financial years are as follows:
| |
Financial Year |
| |
2005-06 |
2006-07 |
2007-08 |
| Number of applications approved by the Government |
919 |
1,083 |
1,267 |
| Number of applications on the waiting list |
2,902 |
3,597 |
3,068 |
(b) For the past three financial years, the Government has received 1,331 applications for the removal of the restriction on alienation clauses, and received a total premium of $1.13 billion in respect of cases for the removal of the restriction on alienation clauses. Details are as follows:
| |
Financial Year |
| |
2005-06 |
2006-07 |
2007-08 |
| Number of applications for the removal of the restriction on alienation clauses |
436 |
422 |
473 |
| Total premium received in respect of cases for the removal of the restriction on alienation clauses |
$320 million |
$370 million |
$440 million |
(c) The Lands Department does not have statistics on the administration costs for processing the applications for small houses.
4 LCQ1: Hopewell Centre II
Hong Kong Government, 26 November 2008
Following is a question by the Hon Cyd Ho Sau-lan and a reply by the Secretary for Development, Mrs Carrie Lam, in the Legislative Council today (November 26):
Question:
The developer of the Hopewell Centre II project plans to exchange for land on the slope at Kennedy Road by land exchange or payment of premium to construct a hotel and commercial building. If the land exchange proposal is approved, some 500 trees of that area will be felled. According to the traffic impact assessment provided by the developer, the traffic flow during rush hours will be increased by 500 vehicles per hour upon completion of the development project, resulting in a substantial increase of emission in the district. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the land exchange policies in place and the criteria adopted for land exchange; the land lot proposed to be surrendered by the developer in exchange for the land on the slope mentioned above; and whether the proposed land lot can also serve the same function as some 500 trees on the slope in terms of absorption of carbon dioxide;
(b) whether it will consult the public on the land exchange proposal and approve it only after a consensus is reached in the community; if it will not, of the reasons for that; and
(c) although the land grant provisions require that the developer to carry out road improvement works, the proposed improvement measures by the developer are limited only to mitigating the vehicular flow into Queen's Road East from Kennedy Road, without addressing the impact of the vehicular flow on the junction of Queen's Road East, Wong Nai Chung Road and Morrison Hill Road, impact on Canal Road West and Leighton Road and their neighbourhood, as well as the impact on traffic to and from Southern District, the Cross Harbour Tunnel to Hung Hom, and the east and west bound traffic of Hong Kong Island, whether it will request the developer to cover the above districts in its traffic impact assessment; if it will not, of the reasons for that?
Reply:
President,
As explained in my reply last week to the question raised by Hon Tanya CHAN on the Hopewell Centre II project, the developer has decided to reduce the scale of the project significantly having listened to public views and after repeated discussions with the Government. Under the new revised scheme, the total gross floor area, plot ratio, number of hotel rooms and building height will be significantly reduced as compared with the 1994 approved scheme.
The developer will follow up with Transport Department (TD) on the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) report and road improvement works in the context of the new revised scheme. I believe that the significant reduction in development intensity would help the discussion between the developer and TD regarding the TIA in the next phase.
Other than the road improvement works, the Town Planning Board (TPB), in granting the planning permission in 1994, required the developer to submit and implement landscape proposals and tree felling report in respect of the entire development to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning or the TPB. Besides, tree preservation clauses will be included in the land exchange conditions for the proposed development to ensure that, without prior written consent of the Government, no trees grown on the site will be removed or disturbed. In giving its consent, the Government may as appropriate impose different conditions, e.g., requirements on transplanting, compensatory landscaping or replanting.
My reply to the three-part question raised by Hon Cyd HO is as follows:
(a) Our existing land policy is to optimise land uses within the framework of planned land use zoning. In general, the Government accepts developers' applications for "in-situ exchange" to allow implementation of plans or projects approved within the statutory planning framework and uphold the principle of optimisation of land use. This involves arrangements concerning the surrender of the private lot within the development site by the developer in exchange for the re-grant of a whole piece of land composed of private land and land originally belonging to the Government for development. Certain criteria have to be met for such applications. These include the government land involved in the "in situ exchange" being incapable of reasonable separate alienation or development; there being no foreseeable public use for the land concerned; and the developer having to pay full market value premium to ensure that the revenue received by the Government is no less than that gained through separate alienation.
As regards the Hopewell Centre II project, the developer has followed the above policy and submitted to the Lands Department (LandsD) an application for in-situ exchange in accordance with the scheme approved by the TPB in 1994. The application involves the surrender of the private lot owned by Hopewell within the development site in exchange for the re-grant of a whole piece of land which includes land originally belonging to the Government. Such government land is mainly the government slope adjacent to and surrounding the private lot within the site.
As I have pointed out just now, we can preserve the trees within the site through the landscape proposals and tree felling reports submitted by the developer, as well as the tree preservation clauses included in the conditions of exchange. In fact, the developer, in response to the public concern about the trees within the development site, announced last week that $20 million would be injected to launch a comprehensive tree protection project. There will be 650 trees with more balanced species upon the completion of the project and the green park. As regards the technical issue about the emission and absorption of carbon to be generated by 500 passenger car units and 500 trees as raised by Hon Cyd HO, I would like to refer to the Director of Environmental Protection to examine. However, simply from the greening angle, the project will provide 5,880 square meters of open space. The developer also said that the local community would be consulted on the design of the park.
(b) The public generally welcome Hopewell's announcement last week of its decision to significantly reduce the scale of development. Generally speaking, it is inappropriate to conduct public consultation on individual cases because land administration (including land exchange, lease modification and payment of land premium) is the exercise by the Government of its rights as landlord. As land exchange normally involves planning or other applications such as TIA, there would be some degree of public engagement. The Government places high importance on public views. LandsD, when processing applications for in-situ exchange, will consider the views referred by the relevant departments and put forward by the public. Take the Hopewell Centre II project as an example, I have made it clear that green light will be given to the land exchange application only after the road improvement scheme is approved. The Government must publish a notice in the Gazette of the proposed road improvement works in accordance with the Roads (Works, Use and Compensation) Ordinance (Cap. 370). This statutory procedure allows the public to express their views, which shall be considered by the Government before the road works are authorized. Therefore the public have ample time and opportunity to express their views on the traffic impacts under the project.
(c) As the development project was endorsed by the TPB as early as in 1994, the main purpose of the updated TIA report required by TD in connection with the application for a land exchange subsequently submitted by the developer is to confirm whether the road improvement works proposed previously are still appropriate. Two key road junctions at Queen's Road East/Kennedy Road and Queen's Road East/Spring Garden Lane near the development site are involved. This method of assessing the traffic impact on peripheral roads also applies to other similar developments.
The vehicular flow of Wong Nai Chung Road, Morrison Hill Road, Canal Road West, Leighton Road and their neighbourhood, as well as the impact on traffic between from Southern District and the Cross Harbour Tunnel and the east and west bound traffic of Hong Kong Island as raised in the question are traffic issues at the district level. TD will consider the various projects within the districts and conduct strategic study when necessary.
