TNAG-0657-FCO40-806-Town-planning-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 89

2

I

in Zone 3 under the Density Zoning; that the proposals would

aggravate the existing shortage of building and development land; that the Peak Area would become a preserve for the 'privileged

class which would incur the resentment of the local Chinese

population; that there was no geological basis to the plan as

it had not been established that all sites in the Peak Area were

unsuitable for multi-storey development because of soil or land bearing conditions; that the proposals would discourage economic

redevelopment and encourage the retention of deteriorating buildings

to the detriment of the environment and inefficient use of land;

that the proposal was unnecessary, discriminatory and generally against the interest of the public and in derogation of the rights

of property owners in the area. The objectors also contended that the plot ratio limitation frustrated the actual redevelopment plans of their clients and that it was not within the power or competence of the Town Planning Board to impose it. In the event, the objectors proceeded with a civil action against Government on the grounds that the note regarding plot ratio on the Peak Plan was invalid; the Chief Justice however, ruled in favour of Government. The

objectors were subsequently heard by the Town Planning Board at its meeting on 20th December 1974 when the Board agreed not to uphold the objection. The objections was not withdrawn.

Objection D-

Hong Kong Land Co. Ltd., owner of 46 Plantation Road and managers of 10/12 Peak Road, 38 Mount Kellett Road, 22 Plunkett's Road, 31/33 Mount Kellett Road, 17 Magazine Gap Road, 27 Plantation Road and 24/26 Mount Austin Road

.....

The objectors pointed out that all properties in question were at present developed to exceed 0.5 plot ratio and that this

was in conformity with Crown lease conditions. The effect of the Note on the plan was to greatly reduce land and property values in the event of redevelopment of these sites. They contended that the Town Planning Ordinance did not enable the Board to restrict /the intensity ...