C.S. 166
CONFIDENTIAL # #
XCC(77)82
5
(a)
(b)
Copy No. Page 3
the Committee's report does not comply fully with its term of reference (a), which stressed the need to add to the commercial growth as well as to the amenity and appearance of the central area; and
that the return to public revenue, from implementa- tion of the Committee's final planning proposals, is not reasonable within the meaning of term of reference (b).
of 80
Turning first to the point at (a) in paragraph 4 above, it cannot be denied that the expressed public reaction from a very narrow section of the community to the Committee's published preliminary planning proposals was generally critical of the amount of high-rise development which would be permitted. Public sentiment was strongly in favour of the whole or a major part of the planning area being declared a public park and this has been echoed in the Committee's final planning proposals. A considerable amount of high-rise commercial development will be taking place in the near future on the Admiralty Station site on the other side of Queensway from the planning area and in the absence of reliable forecasts of the space requirements for future commercial expansion in Central District, it is not possible to say with any degree of certainty that the zoning for commercial use included in the Com- mittee's final planning proposals represents an under provision for the future commercial growth of the central area.
6
From a more general planning point of view, the official view is that the residential development proposed in the original scheme would have made better use of the less attractive eastern part of the area than the continuation of the park into this area, particularly as it is intended to allow for a strip of high-rise commercial blocks along this part of Queensway, which would block the view from Central of this part of the area.
7
With reference to point (b) in paragraph 4 above, it is estimated that net revenue return on the basis of the Committee's final planning proposals would be in the order of $648 million as compared with some $1, 450 million under the preliminary planning proposals. The Deputy Financial Secretary, who would favour acceptance of the preliminary published proposals, considers that, if the final proposals were adopted, it would be very important that the financial realities of the proposals should be spelt out for the benefit of the public since the cost of the park would be in the region of $800 million in terms of notionally lost revenue.
CONFIDENTIAL #