17 Conclusions and Recommendations. The Committee are concerned that the Registrar General and the Deputy mancial Secretary failed to resolve their differences over the additional staff required for the microfilming project. Had they done so, $4.75 million would have been saved. The Committee believe that the Deputy Financial Secretary should have been more alert to this potential saving.
6.78 The Committee stress the importance of keeping in sight the principal objective of securing economy. The Committee suggest that had this been done in this case the problem could have been resolved quickly.
6.79 The Committee wish to stress the importance of applying procedures flexibly with the overriding objective of securing value for money.
6.80 The Committee note the analogy with the arrangements for staffing in the Money Lenders Unit of the Registrar General's Department in paragraph 111 of the Director of Audit's report but accept that this requirement was a new statutory obligation which had to be met.
LANDS AND WORKS BRANCH
6.81 Paragraphs 56–60. Government policy not followed in the provision of Government, Institution and Community (GIC) facilities in the dockyard re-development project in Hung Hom. The Secretary for Lands and Works referred to paragraph 59 of the Director of Audit's report where it was stated that 'The Secretary commented that even if his view (his interpretation of the policy) was not correct, the policy needed to be reviewed for both financial and legal reasons but as the review was likely to take time it was desirable in the circumstances that the re-development scheme should not be held up'. The Secretary said that the re-development had been important because of its size and the very considerable amount of revenue that would accrue to the Government at a time when land revenue was short. The then Secretary had been afraid of losing a modification and the associated revenue by introducing a factor which could be delaying and controversial. It was quite clear that the then Secretary had thought that this type of major case involving almost a whole district was not covered by the policy. The Secretary did not agree with this view. He thought that there had been a departure from the policy.
6.82 The Secretary for Lands and Works said that the main reason appeared to have been the very large size of the development. However, he agreed that in such a large development the cost of providing the GIC facilities in comparison with the total costs was very small. Moreover, the provision of GIC facilities in such cases might well be useful to the developer.
6.83 The Secretary for Lands and Works said that in a normal situation the departure from policy should have been referred to the Executive Council. However, this was a policy matter and was not really the affair of the Public Works Sub-Committee of the Finance Committee or the Finance Committee. He did not know why the policy had not been mentioned in the submission to the Finance Committee in May 1984. He did not wish to speculate on what the Finance Committee might have done had it been made known to them that it was the Government's policy for the developer to bear the cost of GIC facilities in private development projects.
6.84 The Secretary said that most policies under which a head of Branch operated were those which had originally been proposed by his own Branch. In most cases the head of Branch would be dealing with his own policy and so was likely to be the expert on it.
6.85 The Secretary did not accept this case as a precedent. Unless and until the policy was changed, there would be no more such cases. Other developers might see it as a precedent and hope that they would not have to pay, but that would not be the interpretation that would now be given.
6.86 The Secretary said that the policy had been generally successful in providing GIC facilities at minimal cost to the Government. There had been many cases under this policy where modifications and developments had taken place and facilities had been provided. But developers had always felt that the Government was not being equitable. This had been reflected very strongly ever since the policy had been adopted. For the developer there was a balance between the additional benefit from the change of land use and the cost of providing GIC facilities. It depended upon the degree of GIC or open space provision which the developer had to provide in relation to the value of the development. Grievances were also expressed by developers in cases where the land was held under virtually unrestricted lease conditions and no modification was required, only a change in the zoning under the Town Planning Ordinance.
6.87 The Secretary said that the policy was now being reviewed. There were extremely difficult issues involving the public interest and the question of priority in the provision of public works, the landowner's interest in his land and the complex relationship between the Town Planning Ordinance and the Buildings Ordinance. The review was to establish whether it was appropriate that in cases requiring a change in land use under section 16 of the Town Planning Ordinance, developers should be asked to pay for GIC facilities, and to examine the possibility of making distinctions between different kinds of cases. Many section 16 cases were single lots which were zoned for either GIC or open space in which the developer would not normally be able to re-develop at all. In such cases the scale of the facilities demanded could be quite considerable. The Secretary aimed to complete the review by about the end of March 1987.
6.88 The Secretary for Lands and Works said that without exception in all the section 16 cases, it was the developer who carried out the construction of the GIC facilities.
6.89 Conclusions and Recommendations. The Committee note that there are two possible explanations of this situation. The first is that there was doubt in the mind of the then Secretary for Lands and Works as to whether this case fell within
19
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.