TNAG-0808-FCO40-1013-Use-of-Crown-lands-relinquished-by-Ministry-of-Defence-in-Ho-1978 — Page 2

alienation, either separately or together with other adjoining Crown land. Prima facie, it could therefore be argued that, since the land included in such an extension cannot be used by anyone else, garden extensions could be permitted on modification to count for plot ratio and site coverage - subject to there being no objection to a more extensive development of the parent lot and to an appropriate premium being paid.

4

But in practice, most of the areas where there are garden extensions are areas where it is desirable to restrict development because of the need to limit the growth of traffic and population. The Mid-Levels District and Pok Fu Lam are of course extreme cases where it has been necessary to prohibit any modifications which would give rise to increased development and traffic. Honourable Members will also recall that the Peak District is the subject of a draft town plan in which the Town Planning Board is seeking to restrict redevelopment to a plot ratio of 0.5 or the volume of existing buildings. Inclusion of garden extensions for calculation of plot ratio would, in many cases, increase the effective plot ratio to over 1, thereby defeating the Town Planning Board's intention and creating unfavourable distinctions between those fortunate enough to have obtained garden extensions and those not so fortunate. Other areas where there are garden extensions are Stanley and Repulse Bay, in all of which there are compelling reasons against any change of policy which would add to the development potential of existing properties. Thus any change of policy would have to expressly exclude most of the areas from which potential applications could derive.

5

Moreover, even in areas where the change of policy was to be effective, there would have to be numerous exceptions to any such change because:

(a) it would not be appropriate to apply the new ruling to extension areas granted for the purpose of cutting or fill slopes;

(b)

areas comprising cut or fill slopes included in the original lot area (but excluded from counting for coverage and plot ratio) could not be included;

(c) it would not be desirable to include steeply sloping or terraced garden extensions, which might result in either unsightly stilted development or almost total building coverage on a small platform area;

(d) in view of the policy background, modifications could

only be justified on the grounds that the character of

the neighbourhood had totally changed.

CONFIDENTIAL