TNAG-0743-FCO40-947-Relations-between-China-and-Hong-Kong-1978 — Page 73

XCR(78)200

4

•

the area, recommended that the office development on this site' should be restricted to the minimum to "pay" for the construction of Government facilities in the new terminal. In the early stages of the discussions, this view continued to be held by the Public Works Department! However, following the Comprehensive Transport Survey Report and the more recent Island Corridor Study, detailed traffic assessments have been made. Both these studies have re- affirmed the need for the major road improvement scheme involving the elevated structure, and plans for its construction have now been gazetted. If the project proceeds as planned, spare road capacity will be available at ground level. The latest traffic assessment indicates that the majority of vehicle trips generated by the re- development would arise from the terminal itself. These are estimated to be in the order of 500 vehicles' (one-way) in the peak hour on the basis of a future annual passenger throughput of 10 million. By comparison, on the basis of observed traffic generation of similar office development in the Central District, and provided no separate car parking facilities are permitted within the site, the traffic generated by the office development above would only be a fraction of that expected by the terminal. The Public Works Department has therefore reviewed its position and now considers that, for the reasons detailed in paragraph 8, a somewhat greater scale of office development would be tolerable. In the negotiation process therefore, the Corporation was informed that a recommendation would be made to Government that on the basis of the scheme sub- mitted in the Final Report, and adopting the values already agreed (i.e. as at July 1977), development extending to 20 storeys overall (including the podium decks) and amounting to a plot ratio of 9.38 on the actual site should be permitted, and that the excess value of the development rights granted, i. e. 'the difference between a plot ratio of 6.59 and 9. 38, should be paid for by way of a premium amounting to $20.23 million. It was the Director of Public Works' view that this would represent a reasonably balanced development more consistent with the size and the cost of the podium. Having considered this offer, the Corporation was of the view that it was still insufficiently attractive and has requested that, subject to payment of an appropriate premium, full development rights up to a maxium plot ratio of 15 should be permitted on the site.

8

As mentioned in the preceding paragraph the scope of the project for which Council's approval was sought in 1975 was restricted by the view that, for traffic reasons, the Corporation's commercial development should be restricted to that which would pay for the works to be done for the Government. Had this view, not then been taken, there is no reason why full development of the site at premium, as then requested by the Corporation, should not have been recommended. Thus, although it may appear that the Corporation is seeking to take advantage of the urgency of the

ř