!
6.
E
competence. The objection was not upheld nor was it withdrawn.
Objection O W.I. Cheung & Co., on behalf of the owner of
48 Mount Kellett Road
The owner intended to redevelop the property in accordance with the Density Zoning at Zone 3 coverage to the maximum possible plot ratio of 3. Limiting a plot ratio to
0.5 reduced the value of the property. The objection was not
upheld nor was it withdrawn.
Objections P, Q & R - W.I. Cheung & Co., on behalf of the owners of 9 Mount Kellett Road (P), the owners of 11 Magazine Gap Road (Q), and the owners of 23 Plantation Road (R)
All objected that the redevelopment potential was greatly
reduced by the imposition of a plot ratio restriction and contended
that it was not within the competence of the Town Planning Board
to restrict plot ratio. The objection was not upheld nor was it
withdrawn.
Objection SW.I. 'Cheung & Co., on behalf of District Estates Ltd.,
owners of R.B.L. 732 No. 7, Mount Kellett Road
This objection contained similar, arguments to Objection U
(below) and was subsequently withdrawn.
Objection T W.I. Cheung & Co., on behalf of Skylly (Hong Kong) Ltd.
owners of 16 Peak Road
This objection contained similar arguments to Objection U.
The objection was not upheld nor was it withdrawn.
Objection U-W.I. Cheung & Co., on behalf of Trump Investment Ltd.,
owners of R.B.L. 874 - No. 5 Guildford Road -
The 0.5 plot ratio effectively reduced the potential redevelopment building volume by 58%, and therefore adversely affected the interest of, the owners. The objéctor also contended that it was not within the Town Planning Board's competence to alter plot ratio and coverage of land, and proposed that the /offending