TNAG-0673-FCO40-822-Legislation-for-Crown-lands-in-Hong-Kong-1978 — Page 132

G.S. 84

RESTRICTED

3-

XCRI(77)15

(b)

(c)

Urban Renewal case 9 There was a difference of view in the valuation of the development potential of the site bet- ween the Government's assessment and that of the Lands Tribunal. The relevant extract from the Tribunal's decision reads -

"Mr HO's (Government valuer) figures

show a drop from the above unit price of 33% to arrive at the value of No 13 Shing Wong Street. This to us appears excessive for an adjoining property and we are con- sequently of the opinion that a decrease of 16% would be proper (especially as Hollywood Road is only 2 feet wider than Shing Wong Street and the difference in development potential of the two properties treated as single sites cannot be great) and that the main difference must lie in the difference between the ratios of sale- able to gross floor areas.

Urban Renewal cases 13 and 14

In these two cases, the Lands Tribunal held a different view from the Government valuer of the effect of the locality, aspect and po- sition of the site and the time of the valuation on the unit cleared site value of the properties concerned. The relevant extract from the Tribunal's decision reads -

"The Tribunal was prepared to accept

Mr HO's figures for plot ratio and sale- able ratio but it did not agree with his views as to locality, aspect, position and the time factor. In the case of locality it was argued for the claimants that the trading position of the subject sites as far as the shops were concerned was better than No 156 Hollywood Road and that there would be little difference, if any, in the value of the upper parts of these two properties. The Tribunal considered that these arguments had much force and that the subject sites, in fact, had a 10% advantage over No 156. The Tribunal agreed with Mr HO that No 156 was superior to the subject sites as regards aspect and position however it did not consider that these merited a 15% increase but was satisfied that the correct figure was 10%, Finally the Tribunal was not

RESTRICTED