الوحدة الية
Action
13.
Mr M.C. WONG pointed out that the installation of a . spiral ramp would lengthen the construction period; and the developer could not guarantee that even if the spiral ramp was built construction vehicles would not use Shiu Fai Terrace.
94.
Mr Terence TENG said that the residents had always understood that the lot could not be developed for 18 units. They did not expect the sudden change to their environment resulting from the proposed expansion of the development. He did not understand why the government would allow the developer to expand his development on condition that elevated access road was to be built. There seemed much justification to object to the current proposal, and he supported the residents.
15.
Hr M.K. WONG explained that due to the amendment in Town Planning guidelines, all developers could build larger developments in Shiu Fai Terrace if proper access was provided.
15.
Mr CHUNG Tee-on commented that in the past, buildings in Shiu Fai Terrace were low-storeyed but nowadays most of them had changed to high rise buildings. Traffic had increased as the population increased and the government should consider road. capacity before approving re-development schemes submitted by individual developers. He believed that the developer could earn more profit out of a larger development and the government could also gain more revenue from rates, etc. He was more concerned with the permanent effect on Shiu Fai Terrace traffic after development. He concluded that the developer could simply choose between two alternatives to build a development of 18 units as originally proposed, or to build a larger development at an additional cost of a spiral ramp leading to Kennedy Road.
17.
Mr John Cardenzana referred to paragraph 11 of the previous minutes of meeting held on 10 December 1985 (Appendix B) and asked the government to comment on the feasibility and the cost of the spiral ramp from Kennedy Road. Mr M.P. Clarke replied that he could not comment on the cost of $12.5 million estimated by the developer since this was a Highways Department responsibility. He believed however, that the developer would not develop the site if the spiral ramp from Kennedy Road was required. In any case he considered that the proposed spiral ramp might not be up to public road standard.
18.
In response to Mrs Peggy LAM, Nr K.J. Healy replied that Inland Lot No. 2071 Section E was originally granted in 1914 and was part of a large site where United Mansion now ntood. This explained why the lot had a right of way through United Mansion. The lot could also gain access to Kennedy Road by a series of steps and remps. MY.T. WONG added that originally four buildings owned by two families stood on the site. After a landslip and flooding ten years ago, the four buildings were declared dangerous. One of the owners abandoned the site which the government sold as Inland Lot No. 2071 Section 3. There had been a podium for walking down to Kennedy Road without the need to go through Shiu Fai Terrace.
/5...
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.