XCR (79)229
RESTRICTED
4
10
The Company on the other hand has made it clear that it would not wish to proceed if a high premium is charged. It does not accept that the provision of facilities will add substantially to the lettability or rental of its domestic premises, and considers that the commercial facilities will not benefit at all. However, it has produced no arguments to support this view, which is not entirely shared by the Director of Lands Survey and Town Planning.
11
It has now made a counter-offer that it should pay an empirical premium of $10 million for regrant of Pier No 6 for a term of 21 years. As this represents a considerable increase on the amount originally offered by the Company, and it has stated that it will not be prepared to pay more, but will rather abandon the scheme, there is little point in pressing further for a higher premium. The choice is rather whether to accept the Company's offer or abandon the scheme.
1
Alternatives to the Present Scheme
12
The Company has said that if the scheme is not approved, it will request that Pier No 6 like Pier No 7, should be regranted for its previous cargo handling purposes. Although the use of two piers for cargo handling would appear to be incompatible with the Company's objective of using Pier No 6 for general public recreational use, the Company has said that they would propose to mitigate the environmental effects of this use by establishing an electric rail cargo delivery into the Ocean Terminal where the subsequent handling of the cargo would be carried out. The possibility of taking over the pier on expiry of the lease and its development for public recreational use has been considered, but if anything more than a sitting out area was to be established, the development costs would be high and at least for the present, it is unlikely that resources would be available for developing it. Any other use would involve acquiring vehicular rights across the Company's land, which in the present state of development would be difficult and expensive.
13
In this context, Members will wish to. note that the Company's proposals are unlikely to bring in significantly more revenue to Govern- ment than would alternative use as a cargo handling pier. Proposals will shortly be made to this Council for a grant of existing public piers on an Toin updated annual rental, which in the case of KPP No 6 would amount to
Inned about $500,000 per annum.
G.S.' 84
Vehicular Access to Kowloon Permanent Pier No 54
14
In the context of the negotiations regarding Piers Nos 6 and 7, the Company has agreed that it will permit public vehicular access to Kowloon Permanent Pier No 54, following its reversion to the Crown, as
RESTRICTED