3
the intensity of use of land without payment of compensation.
The objection was subsequently withdrawn in view of the amendment
to the plot ratio note.
Objection E- Royal Interocean Lines, owner of 26 and 81 Peak Road,
and 11 Plantation Road
The above premises provided staff quarters, and if for some reason (for example, natural disaster or ageing), they
became a total loss, redevelopment would result in less quarters under the 0.5 plot ratio restriction. The Board. agreed not to uphold the objection but the objector when informed of the
proposed revised note to the plan, agreed to withdraw his objection.
Objection F Palmer and Turner, Architects & Civil Engineers
The objectors suggested that the proposed multi-storey car park be built into a suitable spot on the hillside in the
vicinity of the Peak Cafe in such a way that its roof would not exceed road level and cars would descend to its lower floors.
The Board considered this in conjunction with an "out of time" objection and petition from the owner of the Peak Cafe and an "out of time" objection from a Peak resident protesting against the possible demolition of the, cafe to make way for the car park. Engineering investigations showed that the cost of such a project would be excessive and its effect on the amenity value of the Peak Cafe would also be undesirable. The Board therefore agreed not to uphold the objection, which was not withdrawn.
Objection G -
-
Johnson, Stokes & Master on behalf of Mr. Haking Wong, owner of 43 Barker Road
The objection related to 0.5 plot ratio and also suggested that if restrictions were placed on development in the Repulse Bay/ Stanley areas a higher intensity of development could be permitted in the Peak area. The Board agreed that the latter part of the objection should not be upheld as the proposed measure would not
/overcome