TNAG-0657-FCO40-806-Town-planning-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 93

- 5

objection was withdrawn in view of the amendment to the plot ratio

Note.

Objection L Deacons on behalf of Tak Shing Investment Co. Ltd.,

owner of 27 Magazine Gap Road

The objectors contended that the proposed plot ratio

limitation was not in accordance with the covenants in the Crown

lease and that the Town Planning Board had no power to impose plot

ratio limitations. Despite the amendment to the Note on plot ratio,

the objectors did not withdraw their objection.

Objection M - Messrs Woo, Kwan, Lee,& Lo on behalf of Haworth

Investments Ltd., owner of 40 & 44 Magazine Gap Road

The objectors objected to the plot ratio restriction on the grounds that their clients' proposed development was within

Zone 3 of the Density Zoning which permitted the erection of a

23-storey building with maximum site coverage of 15%. It was

contended that limited access roads was an insufficient reason to

dictate density restrictions and that because of limiting

geographical factors even a plot ratio of 3 would still result in

comparatively little additional development.. The objectors, believed

that the restriction was outside of the Planning Board's authority and also maintained that it was inequitable to retain a sparse population in an area which already enjoyed greater privileges than the remainder of the urban area, The Board explained to the objectors that from studies carried out, it had been proven that a plot ratio of 3 would be disastrous as far as road capacity was concerned. The objection was not upheld nor was it withdrawn.

Objection NW.I. Cheung & Co., on behalf of Skylly (Hong Kong)

Ltd.. owner of 20 Peak Road

It was pointed out that the plot ratio restriction reduced the potential redevelopment of the site by 44% and corres- pondingly the value of the property. It was also contended that

the plot ratio limitation was outside of the Town Planning Board's

/competence

...