F
G.S. 84
RESTRICTED
XCR(78)250
Objection from Messrs Ng and Yung on behalf of
Mr Yiu Kwong-yim (Annex F)
16
Messrs Ng and Yung have objected to the proposed under- taking on behalf of the owner of Lot No 577/3 section A sub-section 3, Mr Yiu Kwong-yim on the grounds that it will cause hardship and damages to their client's property. The owner will withdraw his objection if the Crown will undertake to allow him to reconstruct a three storey building on the remaining portion of the lot not affected by the road works and pay all reconstruction costs.
17
The existing structure on this sub-section is an old stone built two storey building which was constructed many years ago without authorisation. This building straddles two other lots namely Lot No 577/3 section A sub-section 2 and Lot No 577/3 section A Remaining Portion. Although strictly speaking only Lot No 577/3 section A sub-section 2 is directly affected by the road widening project and will require resumption, the two other lots will have to be acquired at the same time because it is not possible to demolish only part of this two storey stone building. The whole building will have to be demolished and hence the need to resume the other two lots as well.
18
The remaining two lots are in an area zoned for Government, Institutional and Community purposes in the draft Kowloon Tong Outline Zoning Plan No LK18/9 now under preparation. There is no specific project planned for the site, the balance of which will have to be acquired for development at the appropriate time. It would, however, be inappropriate to permit the construction of a three-storey building on the land not yet required, which would only have to be demolished later without compensation. For this reason, it is proposed that following the resumption and the demolition of the houses it should be used for a works area for the road-works. It is not proposed to offer these lots back to the owner as they cannot be developed and are most unlikely to be cultivated, and the only effect of a regrant would be that the land would have to be resumed later.
19
As in the previous case, compensation will be paid at the prevailing rate for the resumption of the agricultural land owned by the objector. It is, therefore, recommended that the objection should not be upheld.
RESTRICTED