environmental impacts of large construction projects. Environmental impact
assessment (EIA) requirements started to apply in Hong Kong in the 1980s, but
only to public works projects. To minimise environmental pollution and even
damage from urban activities, it is vital to properly address problems such as air
quality, water quality, noise level, solid waste disposal and potentially hazardous
installations.128
Environmental protection
Resources are limited. To strike a balance between environmental protection
and development, the policy review focused on measures to address problems
in the 1990s. For the improvement of air quality, for example, decisive measures
were taken to restrict and manage the use of cars and to introduce and imple-
ment stringent vehicle emission standards. Efforts were made to expand the
proposed schemes of using fuel gas and liquid petroleum gas (LPG) in lieu of
126
Hong Kong Planning Department, Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy: Final Report, Hong
Kong, Planning Department, 2007, p.3.
127
Hong Kong Planning Department, Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy: Final Report, Hong
Kong, Planning Department, 2007, p.3.
128
Hong Kong Government Planning, Environment and Lands Branch, Territorial Development Strategy:
A Response to Change and Challenges: A Digest of Key Points, Hong Kong, Planning, Environment and Lands
Branch, 1998, p.3.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 351 20/08/2018 16:48
352 · MAKING HONG KONG
diesel, and to better encourage the use of more eco-friendly means of transport,
such as passenger railway and electric vehicles. Besides, land uses were coordi-
nated with transportation planning with a view to reducing the amount of traffic
derived. As for the improvement of water quality, efforts were made to ensure
the timely completion of works under the Strategic Sewage Disposal Scheme
(SSDS), so as to significantly improve the harbour water quality, together with
the comprehensive review on all the district-based sewerage master plans. In
terms of noise treatment, related root causes were tackled in order to minimise
noise and other negative impacts on the environment. There were also protec-
tive measures to reduce noise nuisance whenever necessary. As for solid waste
management, it was proposed to construct large-scale waste-to-energy facilities
as soon as possible.
On 1 April 1998, the government formally enacted the Environmental Impact
Assessment Ordinance, making EIAs statutory for designated projects in both
the private and public sectors.129 EIAs are required for all major infrastructure
projects in order to assess the impact of imminent projects on the environment.
Related projects may not proceed without the environmental permits issued
by the Director of Environmental Protection. EIA studies involve a wide range
of professional disciplines and issues. Hence, the Environmental Protection
Department must take advice from relevant authorities on specific issues and
matters.130
In July 2002, the Planning Department took further measures to expand
Chapter 4 of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) on
Recreation and Open Space so as to incorporate planning guidelines on green-
ing.131 The purpose was to improve the environment through active planting,
proper maintenance and preservation of trees and other vegetation.132 The 1989
HKPSG133 recommended at least 20 hectares of public open space for every
100,000 people, or 2 square metres for each person, including 1 square metre
of district open space (within medium-size sites providing facilities for core
activities and passive recreation to meet the needs of a district population) and
1 square metre of local open space (featuring more passive recreation and pro-
viding sitting-out areas and children’s playgrounds to serve the neighbourhood
population).134 The planning objectives for ‘open space’ in various districts fol-
lowed the established criteria in the HKPSG. (See Table 6.9.)
129
Environmental Protection Department website, http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/tc_chi/environmentinhk/
eia_planning/eia_maincontent.html.
130
Hong Kong Legislative Council Panel on Environmental Affairs, ‘Interface between the Environmental
Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499) and the Air Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap. 311)’, LC Paper
No. CB(1)567/12-13(01), Discussion Paper, 25 February 2013, p.2.
131
‘Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines Revised’, Press Releases, 26 July 2002.
132
Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines website, http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_tc/tech_
doc/hkpsg/full/ch4/ch4_text.htm#2.
133
Hong Kong Planning Department, Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, Hong Kong, Planning
Department, 1989, p.4.21.
134
Planning Department website, http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_tc/tech_doc/hkpsg/full/ch4/ch4_
text.htm#1.8.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 352 20/08/2018 16:48
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 353
Table 6.9 Sizes of ‘open space’ and ‘green belts’ planned for various districts in 2010
District Council district Area Population Land zoned as ‘open space’ Land zoned as ‘green belt’ Area of open space
(hectares) recommended by
Total area Private land Total area Private land
Hong Kong Planning
(hectares (%)) included (hectares) (hectares (%)) included (hectares)
Standards and
Guidelines (hectares)
1. Central and Western 1,255 252,000 66.3 1.7 238.6 1.8 50.4
(5.3) (19.0)
2. Wan Chai 996 153,000 34.6 1.5 246.4 4.3 30.6
(3.5) (24.7)
3. Eastern 1,900 588,000 90.6 9.3 314.4 5.4 117.6
(4.8) (16.6)
4. Southern 4,000 279,000 73.5 1.4 992.4 27.1 55.8
(1.8) (24.8)
5. Yau Tsim Mong 700 308,000 70.3 1.4 2.2 0.0 61.6
(10.0) (0.3)
6. Kowloon City 1,000 377,000 165.5 0.5 48.2 0.2 75.4
(16.6) (4.8)
7. Kwun Tong 1,130 622,000 129.0 0.6 150.6 0.9 124.4
(11.4) (13.3)
8. Wong Tai Sin 926 420,000 64.2 0.5 199.8 0.6 84
(6.9) (21.6)
9. Sham Shui Po 1,047 381,000 92.2 0.6 107.6 0.7 76.2
(8.8) (10.3)
20/08/2018 16:48
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 354
Table 6.9 (continued)
District Council district Area Population Land zoned as ‘open space’ Land zoned as ‘green belt’ Area of open space
(hectares) recommended by
Total area Private land Total area Private land
Hong Kong Planning
(hectares (%)) included (hectares) (hectares (%)) included (hectares)
Standards and
Guidelines (hectares)
10. Kwai Tsing 2,237 511,000 156.9 2.2 676.0 8.6 102.2
(7.0) (30.2)
11. Tsuen Wan 6,000 305,000 140.7 4.5 1,046.4 574.2 61
(2.4) (17.4)
12. Sha Tin 6,940 630,000 302.7 12.9 1,343.4 55.7 126
(4.4) (19.4)
13. Tai Po 14,800 297,000 67.2 1.7 1,569.6 230.5 59.4
(0.5) (10.6)
14. North 13,670 304,000 58.3 7.9 1,697.1 196.9 60.8
(0.4) (12.4)
15. Tuen Mun 8,200 488,000 122.9 4.6 1,189.2 74.0 97.6
(1.5) (14.5)
16. Yuen Long 14,430 579,000 146.6 36.4 1,315.7 377.2 115.8
(1.0) (9.1)
17. Sai Kung 12,680 437,000 189.0 0.2 1,276.7 118.3 87.4
(1.5) (10.1)
18. Islands 17,600 141,000 94.1 15.5 1,389.8 281.1 28.2
(0.5) (7.9)
Grand total 109,511 7,072,000 2,064.6 103.4 13,804.1 1,957.5 1,414.4
(1.9) (12.6)
Sources: For areas of land zoned as ‘open space’ and ‘green belt’: Hong Kong Legislative Council, Official Record of Proceedings, 10 March 2010, pp.5821–5827, http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr09-10/english/counmtg/hansard/
cm0310-translate-e.pdf; District Councils website: http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/. For areas of district council districts: Home Affairs Department website: http://www.had.gov.hk/tc/index.htm. For population of district
council districts: 2011 Population Census, http://www.census2011.gov.hk/tc/.
20/08/2018 16:48
Transformation after the return to China (1997–2015) · 355
Country parks
Planning green belts in urban areas is as important as conserving the natural
ecosystem in rural areas, but the difficulties encountered are very different. In
fact, in the 1960s, there was already advocacy for opening up country parks to
balance the city’s development ecology.
At that time, different countries around the world were dedicated to devel-
oping country parks on a large scale. In 1962, the first World Parks Congress
and the eighth Commonwealth Forestry Conference were held in the USA
and Kenya, featuring the themes of ‘Establishing National Parks’ and ‘Nature
Conservation’, respectively.135 In early 1965, the Agriculture and Fisheries
Department invited US environmental scientists Lee and Martha Talbot to
conduct research on the situation in Hong Kong.136 Based on Conservation
of the Hong Kong Countryside: Summary Report and Recommendation by the
Talbots,137 the government established the Provisional Council for the Use
and Conservation of the Countryside on 1 March 1967.138 In June 1968, the
Provisional Council published The Countryside and the People: Report of the
Provisional Council for the Use and Conservation of the Countryside, stating, in the
aftermath of the 1967 riots, that country parks would help alleviate the stress of
the urban population and provide young people with appropriate amenities.139
Disputes relating to land development on the outskirts existed as early as
1863 during the construction of Hong Kong’s first reservoir to collect rainwater
to address the drinking water problem in the city. The government needed to
identify a catchment area near the reservoir to channel rainwater in or out as
the case might be. Such catchment areas not only became the city’s green belts,
but also greatly reduced land available for commercial/industrial or residential
development. Fifty-five years after the construction of Pok Fu Lam Reservoir,
H.W. Bird, a member of the Legislative Council, still requested the government
to convert the relevant catchment area for residential use.140 The Pok Fu Lam
Reservoir Catchment Area was 416 acres (168.5 hectares) in size,141 while the
Tai Tam Catchment Area was 680 acres (275.4 hectares).142 As the amount
of rainwater in a catchment area would directly affect the storage level of the
reservoir, and the stable supply of drinking water would be far more important
135
Yang Jiaming, Jiaoye sanshiniang (30th Anniversary of Country Parks), Hong Kong, Friends of the
Country Parks, 2007, p.30.
136
Lee M. Talbot and Martha H. Talbot, Conservation of the Hong Kong Countryside: Summary Report and
Recommendation, Hong Kong, Government Printer, 1965, p.1.
137
Lee M. Talbot and Martha H. Talbot, Conservation of the Hong Kong Countryside: Summary Report and
Recommendation, Hong Kong, Government Printer, 1965, p.1.
138
Hong Kong Hansard, Hong Kong Government, 1 March 1967, p.76.
139
The Countryside and the People: Report of the Provisional Council for the Use and Conservation of the
Countryside, Hong Kong, Government Printer, 1968, pp.4–13.
140
Huazi ribao, 4 October 1918; Hong Kong Hansard, Hong Kong Government, 3 October 1918, p.64.
141
Francis A. Cooper, ‘Report on the Water Supply of the City of Victoria and Hill District’, Hong Kong
Sessional Papers, Hong Kong, Noronha & Co., 1896, p.255.
142
Francis A. Cooper, ‘Report on the Water Supply of the City of Victoria and Hill District’, Hong Kong
Sessional Papers, Hong Kong, Noronha & Co., 1896, pp.255–256.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 355 20/08/2018 16:48
356 · MAKING HONG KONG
than real estate development, the government further expanded the catchment
areas instead of reducing their sizes, giving top priority to water supply. The
government planted trees within the reservoir catchment areas to change the
rural landscape. It planted water-absorbing trees in fertile areas to reduce rain-
water run-off. For places with poorer soil condition, Chinese red pines, slash
pines, forest grey gums or lemon-scented gums were planted to prevent soil
erosion. Apart from balancing water distribution, afforestation could also reduce
the rapid erosion of surface soils due to sunshine, wind or rain, thus protect-
ing the environment near a reservoir. It also breathed new life into some parts
of the forests which had been cut down or burnt by the indigenous inhabit-
ants for the purpose of cultivation. As the government replanned the ecologi-
cal environment near the reservoirs, the indigenous inhabitants were forced to
move away. Fortunately, their number was small in the early days. The natural
environment near the reservoirs changed drastically after the replanning. Most
catchment areas are where country parks are nowadays. We may say that the
lack of natural water resources has instead helped Hong Kong preserve vast
green belts, the ecological environment of which shows the city’s critical need
for water resources.
The Country Park Ordinance was enacted on 11 March 1976 and came into
force on 16 August of the same year.143 The Director of Agriculture and Fisheries
served as the head of the Country Park Authority, in charge of designating park
areas, protecting local vegetation and wildlife and, where appropriate, providing
recreational and educational facilities at suitable locations.144 A Country Parks
Board was also established to propose on related policies and programmes.145 The
boundary of a country park was measured and delineated by surveyors. Nearby
villages would not be included in the park boundary. A draft plan would be devel-
oped after discussions among the district office/district council, village repre-
sentatives, rural committee and relevant government departments before being
gazetted for public consultation for 60 days. Only after any objections were coor-
dinated would the boundary of the park be designated according to the law. Once
gazetted, the boundary became statutory, and no development works should be
carried out inside unless with the approval of the Country Parks Board.146
In 1991, the Town Planning Ordinance was amended, and there was the addi-
tion of a new subsection 4(1)(g), which conferred on the TPB the powers to
prepare statutory town plans, as well as to designate country parks, coastal pro-
tection areas, sites of special scientific interest, green belts and so on for the sake
of nature conservation147 and the protection of ecologically sensitive sites from
development and incompatible land uses.148 In 1998, the Territorial Development
143
Hong Kong Annual Departmental Report by the Director of Agriculture and Fisheries for the Financial Year
1976–77, Hong Kong, Government Printer, 1977, p.51.
144
Hong Kong Country Parks, Hong Kong, Government Printer, 1981, p.2.
145
Hong Kong Country Parks, Hong Kong, Government Printer, 1981, p.2.
146
Hong Kong Country Parks, Hong Kong, Government Printer, 1981, p.6.
147
Ordinances of Hong Kong for the Year 1991, Hong Kong, Government Printer, p.A26.
148
Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department website, http://www.afcd.gov.hk/tc_chi/conser-
vation/con_nncp/con_nncp_prce/files/ch2.rtf.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 356 20/08/2018 16:48
Transformation after the return to China (1997–2015) · 357
Strategy Outline promulgated by the Planning Department proposed the protec-
tion of country parks, marine parks, and other major conservation areas desig-
nated outside the areas for urban uses.149
In 2003, the government conducted a review and public consultation on
nature conservation policy and announced a new conservation policy and imple-
mentation plan on 11 November 2004. Under the New Nature Conservation
Policy, the Environmental Protection Department implemented two schemes:
the Management Agreement Scheme, which provided financial support for non-
governmental organisations by means of the Environment and Conservation
Fund, so that they could conclude management agreements with landowners to
promote the nature conservation of the related sites;150 and the Public–Private
Partnership Scheme, under which the government would assess related pro-
posals with due consideration to the net benefits in enhancing conservation
of the sites, possible adverse environmental impacts arising from the proposed
developments, the sustainability of the proposals, long-term commitments of
the proponents, and so on.151
In 2007, about 6,600 hectares of land was under conservation zonings,152
and about 43 per cent of Hong Kong’s land area was under statutory protec-
tion.153 According to the strategic planning for environmental protection as
stated in Hong Kong 2030 prepared in 2007, it was important to regulate,
protect and manage natural resources that are important for conservation of
the biodiversity of Hong Kong in a sustainable manner, taking into account
social and economic considerations, for the benefit and enjoyment of the
present and future generations of the community.154 In this way it can be
ensured that the city’s development is undertaken with due regard to the
environmental carrying capacity, enhancing the townscape and regenerating
the old urban areas. And, in such a way, the natural landscape of ecological,
geological, scientific and other significance can be conserved and cultural her-
itage preserved.155
Owing to the opposition of indigenous villagers and the existence of private
land, it was very difficult for the government to include nearby enclaves in the
boundary of a country park. There are a total of 77 ‘country park enclaves’ across
149
Hong Kong Government Planning, Environment and Lands Branch, Territorial Development Strategy:
A Response to Change and Challenges: A Digest of Key Points, Hong Kong, Planning, Environment and Lands
Branch, 1998, p.22.
150
Environmental Protection Department website, http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/tc_chi/environmentinhk/
conservation/conservation_maincontent.html.
151
Environmental Protection Department website, http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/tc_chi/environmentinhk/
conservation/conservation_maincontent.html.
152
Environmental Protection Department website, http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/tc_chi/environmentinhk/
conservation/conservation_maincontent.html.
153
Environmental Protection Department website, http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/tc_chi/environmentinhk/
conservation/conservation_maincontent.html.
154
Hong Kong Planning Department, Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy: Final Report, Hong
Kong, Planning Department, 2007, p.136.
155
Hong Kong Planning Department, Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy: Final Report, Hong
Kong, Planning Department, 2007, p.17.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 357 20/08/2018 16:48
358 · MAKING HONG KONG
the territory, with a total area of about 2,076 hectares. In 2010, the govern-
ment included 23 of such enclaves in the OZPs.156 In June 2010, excavation
works were carried out in the country park enclave of Tai Long Sai Wan in Sai
Kung for the sake of developing private and government land, which prompted
the government to re-examine that land. In the 2010–11 Policy Address, the
government undertook either to include the remaining 54 enclaves in country
parks or to determine their proper uses through statutory planning to meet con-
servation and social development needs.157 The Planning Department and the
Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department assume different duties in
the handling of country park enclaves. The Planning Department prepared 22
development permission area plans (DPA plans) for 30 enclaves as scheduled
in 2014, and took steps to prepare OZPs to replace the DPA plans in a progres-
sive manner. As of mid-November 2015, 14 DPA plans had been replaced by
OZPs.158 According to the Town Planning Ordinance, the Planning Authority
(i.e. the Director of Planning) may take enforcement and regulatory actions
against unauthorised developments in areas covered by DPA plans or the subse-
quent OZPs that replace them.159 In 2014, there were a total of 24 country parks
in Hong Kong, covering an area of 43,455 hectares. Of those parks, 21 were
planned between 1977 and 1979.160
As we can see, for the sake of striking a balance between development and
ecological conservation, it is necessary to delineate country parks, special
areas and conservation zonings by means of statutory town plans and the
Country Park Ordinance, with prudent uses of undeveloped land, as well as
to avoid intrusion into protected and conservation areas. In 2014, about 43
per cent of the land area across the territory was under statutory protec-
tion. Urban green belts have so far taken up about 21 per cent of the city’s
land area, and 23 per cent of rural settlements.161 According to the Planning
Department’s estimates in Hong Kong 2030, a further opening-up of about
2 per cent of the city’s total land area will be sufficient162 to meet the develop-
ment needs involving new areas and major infrastructure projects over the
next years leading to 2030.
156
‘LCQ2: Country Park Enclaves’, Press Releases, 9 October 2013, http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/gene
ral/201310/09/P201310090470.htm.
157
‘LCQ2: Country Park Enclaves’, Press Releases, 9 October 2013, http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/gene
ral/201310/09/P201310090470.htm.
158
Planning Department website, http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_tc/press/exam14/pdf_c/PL1094-
209c.pdf.
159
‘LCQ2: Country Park Enclaves’, Press Releases, 9 October 2013, http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/gene
ral/201310/09/P201310090470.htm.
160
Hong Kong Country Parks, Hong Kong, Government Printer, 1981, p.33; Agriculture, Fisheries and
Conservation Department website, http://www.afcd.gov.hk/tc_chi/country/cou_vis/cou_vis_cou/cou_
vis_cou.html.
161
Hong Kong Planning Department, Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy: Final Report, Hong
Kong, Planning Department, 2007, p.107.
162
Hong Kong Planning Department, Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy: Final Report, Hong
Kong, Planning Department, 2007, p.136.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 358 20/08/2018 16:48
Transformation after the return to China (1997–2015) · 359
Building height and density
In the nineteenth century, the government’s regulation on building construc-
tion in Hong Kong was on public hygiene and building safety. From 1905
onwards, the government divided land located north of Boundary Street into
house lots, agricultural lots, barren land and so on according to the Block Crown
Lease, with applications required for buildings on agricultural lots.163 It could
be deemed the beginning of land use restrictions. In 1939, the government for-
mulated the Town Planning Ordinance, conferring on the TPB the powers to
formulate OZPs for the clear differentiation of land uses.164 However, the imple-
mentation of the ordinance was held up by the Japanese invasion in 1941 and
did not resume until after the war in 1950. In 1951, the TPB was reconvened
and continued with the formulation of OZPs. In 1956, the government promul-
gated several OZPs,165 starting with Yau Ma Tei and North Point.166 Since then,
building design has had to be in line with the land uses in OZPs.
Building height and density restrictions
In 1957, the government promulgated the Hong Kong Airport (Control of
Obstructions) Ordinance, with height restrictions on new buildings in Kowloon,
so as to ensure the safe operation of aircraft take-offs and landings at Kai Tak
Airport. The building height restrictions varied depending on different areas
in order to prevent problematic moves by developers. With the Hong Kong
Principal Datum (HKPD) being 1.23 metres below the mean sea level,167 the
height restriction was 6.1 metres (25 feet) to 42.7 metres (140 feet) above the
HKPD for buildings in Ma Tau Kok,168 51.8 metres (170 feet) above the HKPD
for those around Boundary Street, and 76.2 metres (250 feet)169 above the
HKPD for those on Argyle Street. The height restrictions were inversely propor-
tional to the distance of the related buildings to the airport.
In view of the advancements in navigation technologies, the government
relaxed the building height restrictions for different areas in Kowloon in 1989,
setting the restrictions at 25 to 74.99 metres above the HKPD for Ma Tau Wai
and Kowloon Tong, 25 to 99.99 metres above the HKPD for Mong Kok and
Tai Kok Tsui, 50 to 99.99 metres above the HKPD for Kwun Tong, Yau Ma Tei
and Hung Hom, and 75 to 124.9 metres above the HKPD for Tsim Sha Tsui.170
163
Land Registry Order/Copy Separator, Doc No. SD3L, Block Crown Lease, 1905, pp.2–3.
164
Hong Kong Government Gazette, Hong Kong Government, 23 June 1939, p.582.
165
Hong Kong Annual Departmental Report by the Director of Public Works for the Financial Year 1955–56,
Hong Kong, Government Printer, 1956, p.28.
166
Hong Kong Annual Departmental Report by the Director of Public Works for the Financial Year 1955–56,
Hong Kong, Government Printer, 1956, p.28.
167
Survey and Mapping Office of the Lands Department website, http://www.landsd.gov.hk/mapping/
tc/publications/map.htm.
168
HKRS No. 835, D & S No. 1/104, ‘Memorandum for Executive Council’, BL 4/3220/65, 23 May 1967, p.2.
169
HKRS No. 337, D & S No. 4/2458, ‘Mong Kok Outline Development Plan’, 26 April 1968, p.1.
170
Shankland Cox Asia, Jiulong ji xinjiulong jianzhi midu he gaodu xianzhi jiantao zhaiyao (Summary
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 359 20/08/2018 16:48
360 · MAKING HONG KONG
Even after the relaxation, most buildings in Kowloon were not allowed to exceed
124.99 metres above the HKPD.
It was generally expected that the height restrictions would be removed fol-
lowing the relocation of the airport in 1998. In 1993, the Planning Department
conducted the Review of Building Density and Height Restrictions in Kowloon
and New Kowloon, calculating the threshold of development density for
Kowloon and New Kowloon, and assessing the capacities of large-scale traffic
and infrastructure facilities. Eventually the maximum plot ratios of 7.5 and 12
respectively for residential and commercial uses were recommended, involving
changes to all 16 of the OZPs covering Kowloon and New Kowloon, including
those of Cheung Sha Wan and Lai Chi Kok, adding the plot ratio controls, which
was quite an undertaking. Without plot ratio controls and the flight path height
restrictions, developers would have been able to construct taller and taller build-
ings, which would then have led to serious traffic congestion on Waterloo Road,
Prince Edward Road and others, as well as overwhelmed sewage loads. The TPB
received more than 300 objections at that time (47 per cent of which were
related to the plot ratios). The recommended plot ratio controls were already
approved before the relocation of the airport.
After the airport was relocated from the urban area on 10 July 1998, the gov-
ernment amended the Hong Kong Airport (Control of Obstructions) Ordinance,
removing all airport height restrictions in Kowloon. Since then, the plot ratio
restrictions in Kowloon have basically relied on the 16 OZPs as the statutory
basis for such control.
Builders may be eligible for exemptions on plot ratios with the construction
of public passages. As early as 1955 when the Building Regulations were formu-
lated, the Building Authority was conferred the power to grant exemptions.171
Therefore, depending on actual needs, such as the construction of public pas-
sages, environmental protection facilities, public transport services and others,
the Building Authority could provide bonus or exempted gross floor area (GFA)
in the building approval process, which would result in an increase in build-
ing bulk.172 For instance, the Building (Planning) Regulations in 1962 specified
that the plot ratio and site coverage requirements could be partially exempted
if a portion of the lot of the new building was dedicated for public passage.173
The overall heights of buildings could be increased, by means of constructing
public facilities such as multi-storey car parks and rest gardens or by increasing
the ceiling height of each floor. The Harbourfront Landmark in Hung Hom as
well as Highcliff and The Summit on Stubbs Road were examples of skyscrapers
not compatible with the surrounding environment. The 2007 Policy Address
Review of Building Density and Height Restrictions in Kowloon and New Kowloon), Hong Kong, Planning
Department, 1992, p.2.
171
Ordinances of Hong Kong for the Year 1955, Hong Kong, Government Printer, 1955, pp.331–332.
172
Hong Kong Legislative Council Panel on Development, ‘Background Brief on the “Wall Effect” of
Developments and Measures to Control Development Intensity’, LC Paper No. CB(1)232/08-09(11),
August 2008, p.3.
173
Regulations of Hong Kong for the Year 1962, Hong Kong, Government Printer, 1962, pp.379–380.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 360 20/08/2018 16:48
Transformation after the return to China (1997–2015) · 361
particularly mentioned the problem of ‘wall-effect buildings’, which led the
Planning Department to review the building density. The Planning Department
started by examining building heights and subsequently, in order to avoid the
incompatibility and disharmony of skyscrapers or super-tall buildings with the
surrounding environment, building height restrictions were formulated.
In October 2000, the government announced a plan to promote the construc-
tion of environmentally friendly buildings.174 In February 2001, the Buildings
Department, the Lands Department and the Planning Department released a
joint practice note on green and innovative buildings. Fulfilling certain con-
ditions, green features constructed by developers in housing estates could be
excluded from GFA and/or site coverage (SC) calculations stipulated in the
Buildings Ordinance (Cap. 123). This was to encourage developers to improve
the environmental performance of buildings. Eligible features included balco-
nies, wider common corridors and lift lobbies, communal sky gardens, com-
munal podium gardens, acoustic fins, sunshades and reflectors, wing walls, wind
catchers and funnels.175
According to government statistics, from the issue of the joint practice note
relating to green and innovative buildings in February 2001 to July 2002, the
Buildings Department approved 97 development projects with green fea-
tures. The total GFA thus exempted under the Buildings Ordinance (Cap. 123)
amounted to 114,261 square metres.176
According to the government’s response, where lease modification conferred
an increase in land value, a premium would be payable regardless of the GFA
exemption under the Buildings Ordinance. There was no land premium exemp-
tion for green features, and the provisions of the joint practice note relating to
green and innovative buildings did not depart from the said land administration
policy. However, if there was no increase in land value arising from the green
features, the premium would not be required. In respect of certain green and
innovative building features, such as common corridors or mail delivery rooms,
no increase in land value could be identified and hence a premium was not
required for such features.177
Developers did not have to pay land premiums if they increased floor areas
by constructing green features. As a result, there came the so-called ‘inflated
buildings’, with increases in the bulk and the height of many new buildings after
2001. According to an investigation conducted by Green Sense in 2009, 302
housing estates completed between 2000 and 2008 had ‘inflated areas’ of more
than 10 million square feet (929,000 square metres) owing to the construction
of green balconies and clubhouses, equivalent to a total value of 53.5 billion
dollars. Among those housing estates, One Madison in Cheung Sha Wan was
‘inflated’ by as much as 26 per cent. Developers also increased the building height
174
Hong Kong Hansard, Hong Kong Government, 30 January 2002, p.3459.
175
‘Government Offers Incentives for Green Buildings’, Press Releases, 27 February 2001, http://www.info.
gov.hk/gia/general/200102/27/0227099.htm.
176
Hong Kong Hansard, Hong Kong Government, 3 July 2002, p.8231.
177
Hong Kong Hansard, Hong Kong Government, 3 July 2002, pp.8231–8232.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 361 20/08/2018 16:48
362 · MAKING HONG KONG
by constructing car parks. For example, The Legend in Tai Hang, developed by
Cheung Kong (Holdings) Limited, was originally allowed to have 39 residential
storeys. With an 11-storey car park, however, the project eventually claimed to be
57 storeys in height.178 Some developers even made use of the ‘split level’ design
to turn one storey into two, with one storey being used as the living room and
the other as bedrooms but, with a void in between, they were regarded as only
one storey. Thus a building with more than 70 storeys and nearly 200 metres
in height in reality would be considered to have just about 30 storeys under the
Buildings Ordinance. The administration considered it impossible to control the
building height by limiting the number of ‘storeys’; therefore restrictions in terms
of metres above Principal Datum (mPD) was adopted.
In the year of Hong Kong’s return to China, property prices surged and con-
tinued rising. Flats on higher storeys were sold at even higher prices for better
views. Skyscrapers built with expensive materials, while increasing the costs,
could bring in even higher profits. For example, a building with a construction
cost of 2,000 dollars per square foot might only be sold at 5,000 dollars per
square foot, while a so-called luxury building with a construction cost of 5,000
dollars per square foot could be sold at over 10,000 dollars per square foot. Flats
on higher storeys, with great views, were much sought after in the market. As a
result, developers would resort to every means and legal loopholes to make their
buildings as tall as possible.
‘ Wall-effect’ buildings’
The lots in urban areas are generally small and separated by lanes. Developers,
however, with increasing financial strength are able to acquire adjacent prop-
erties and combine the lots. Plots sold at government land auctions have also
become larger and larger. To provide their housing estates with beautiful views,
buildings would be arranged in a straight line facing the sea for units to capture
the sea view rather than having them facing each other, which in turn increased
the property prices.179 The term ‘wall-effect buildings’ came up in 2001 to
describe tall buildings with such a disposition within luxury housing estates.
Development of buildings in this way would severely obstruct the views of the
older buildings and also air ventilation in the area.
In December 2006, a community body listed six characteristics of wall-effect
buildings180 and suggested that, if a building has three or more such characteris-
tics, it is likely to be a wall-effect building. These characteristics are:
1. a building separation of less than 15 metres in a housing estate;
2. an average building height of more than 35 storeys (podiums included)
within a housing estate;
Apple Daily, 21 July 2010, p.A09.
178
Interview with Phyllis Li Chi-miu, Deputy Director of Planning, 27 February 2015.
179
180
Green Sense, Wei Gang: cong pinfenglou kan Xianggang de chengshi guihua (Encircling Hong Kong: From
the Wall-effect Buildings Issue to Hong Kong Town Planning), Hong Kong, Warrior Books, 2009, p.99.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 362 20/08/2018 16:48
Transformation after the return to China (1997–2015) · 363
3. the layout of buildings in a near straight line within a housing estate;
4. a location at the seaside, in the town centre or along breezeways, which
affect district or area development;
5. the prevailing wind at the wider side of the buildings or the housing estate;
and
6. the existence of lower buildings nearby.
The government issued guidelines and technical circulars in order to address
the problem of wall-effect buildings. In 2000 and 2001, the government con-
ducted two rounds of public consultations for the Study on Urban Design
Guidelines for Hong Kong, which was completed in mid-2003. In November
2003, the relevant guidelines were included in the HKPSG. They covered
massing and intensity in urban fringe areas and rural areas, development height
profiles, waterfront sites, public areas, streetscapes, heritage, breezeways, view
corridors and specific major land uses.181 After the outbreak of the SARS epi-
demic in the first half of 2003, there was an increasing community demand for
a more health-conscious living environment, including concerns on the effects
of development layout and building design on air circulation and pollutant dis-
sipation.182 To improve the city’s sanitation, the government issued the Team
Clean report in August of the same year, examining the feasibility of stipulat-
ing air ventilation assessment (AVA) as one of the considerations for all major
development or redevelopment proposals in future planning.183
In May 2005, the government promulgated the First Sustainable Development
Strategy for Hong Kong, with special regard to issues such as buildings affect-
ing view corridors or restricting air flow.184 In November 2005, the Planning
Department completed the Feasibility Study for the Establishment of Air
Ventilation Assessment System (the AVA Study). A set of design guidelines
for the improvement of air ventilation was formulated on the basis of the AVA
Study findings. The guidelines included the creation of major air paths and open
space, appropriate street layout, reference for building design and disposition,
and the adoption of a varying building height profile and distribution to avoid
wind blockage,185 with an aim to improve air ventilation.
In 2006, guidelines on air ventilation were introduced in the chapter on
‘Urban Design Guidelines’ of the HKPSG.186 In July of the same year, the
181
‘Government Formulates Guidelines for the Urban Design’, Press Releases, 27 November 2003, http://
www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/brandhk/1127176.htm.
182
Hong Kong Planning Department, Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy: Final Report, Hong
Kong, Planning Department, 2007, p.20.
183
Hong Kong Legislative Council Panel on Development, ‘Addressing the “Wall Effect” in Developments’,
LC Paper No. CB(1)605/07-08(04), January 2008, p.2.
184
Hong Kong Legislative Council Panel on Development, ‘Addressing the “Wall Effect” in Developments’,
LC Paper No. CB(1)605/07-08(04), January 2008, p.2.
185
Hong Kong Legislative Council Panel on Development, ‘Background Brief on the “Wall Effect” of
Developments and Measures to Control Development Intensity’, LC Paper No. CB(1)232/08-09(11),
August 2008, p.2.
186
‘LCQ15: Wall Effect’, Press Releases, 13 June 2007, http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200706/13/
P200706130205.htm.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 363 20/08/2018 16:48
364 · MAKING HONG KONG
government issued a joint technical circular to provide clear guidelines on
matters concerning AVA. Departments, bureaus or authorities responsible for
major government projects were required to undertake AVA and ensure that
air ventilation impact was given due consideration in the planning and design of
major development and redevelopment proposals. The technical circular served
as a guideline for AVA for major government projects. For land available for
sale, if it met the category/categories for AVA, which included having a site
area of 2 hectares or above and a total plot ratio of five times or more, or for
a lot with a GFA of 100,000 square metres or above, the government would
conduct AVA for the sites to assess the impact of development on pedestrian
wind environment.187 In April 2012, the government after collaboration with
the Council for Sustainable Development put forward the Sustainable Building
Design Guidelines against inflated and wall-effect buildings, stipulating that the
related exemption should not exceed 10 per cent of the GFA and should comply
with BEAM Plus requirements. In addition, the government issued guidelines
stating that intervening spaces should be provided for buildings with a projected
facade of 60 metres or above in length, so as to avoid a congested environment.
Developers were prohibited from arranging their buildings in a straight line. The
facade width was also regulated, so as to prevent any increase in the floor area
resulting in an increase in the building height by means of constructing more
public spaces.
Scenery on both sides of Victoria Harbour
Starting from 2006, the government has controlled the building height and
density by means of OZPs and conditions of sale. The TPB reviews the OZPs
of various districts in a progressive manner and revises the relevant planning
parameters in order to exert appropriate control on the development density,
including building heights. Priority is given to areas with potential land sale
sites, areas subject to high development or redevelopment pressure, and areas
of special settings and characteristics (e.g. those around Victoria Harbour and
within view corridors to important ridgelines), incorporating non-building
areas, building height restrictions, and so on. Depending on individual site con-
ditions, the government may also add appropriate development parameters in
the conditions of sale, such as site coverage, maximum gross floor area, plot
ratio, building height, podium size, non-building area, building set-back, and
others.188
Towering skyscrapers have mushroomed on both sides of Victoria Harbour
since 1997. Among them, Two International Finance Centre (IFC) completed
in 2003 is 420 metres tall with a total of 88 storeys. International Commerce
187
Hong Kong Legislative Council Panel on Development, ‘Background Brief on the “Wall Effect” of
Developments and Measures to Control Development Intensity’, LC Paper No. CB(1)232/08-09(11),
August 2008, p.2.
188
Hong Kong Legislative Council Panel on Development, ‘Addressing the “Wall Effect” in Developments’,
LC Paper No. CB(1)605/07-08(04), pp.4–5.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 364 20/08/2018 16:48
Transformation after the return to China (1997–2015) · 365
Centre, completed in 2011, is currently the tallest building in Hong Kong, with
118 storeys and a height of 490 metres. A TPB member recalls the review of the
IFC planning application: ‘Members obviously had diverged opinions on the
towering skyscraper which would encroach the Victoria Peak ridgelines. Some
members considered the provision of additional publicly accessible open space
at the retail podium a planning merit. As more members agreed to the develop-
ment proposal, so the project was eventually approved.’189 The TPB eventually
approved the planning application, and the building plans were approved after
planning permission was obtained.
Of the large-scale residential and commercial development projects approved
by the government between 2001 and 2003, over 60 per cent did not require
planning permission from the TPB. In 2003, the government introduced urban
design guidelines into the HKPSG, indicating that ‘a building free zone below
the ridgelines would need to be maintained when viewing from key and popular
vantage points’.190
The TPB is responsible for vetting planning projects across the territory.
However, except for comprehensive development areas, the TPB is only respon-
sible for considering the planning/development brief, i.e. the planned uses and
development approach, but not including the detailed architectural design. If
the TPB does not stipulate restrictions such as the building height and the plot
ratio in the relevant OZPs, it does not have the power to monitor the height of
buildings on residential or commercial land. Patrick Lau, the then Legislative
Councillor representing the architectural, surveying and planning sector, said
the TPB could do nothing about Harbourfront Landmark because the land lease
did not specify any building height restriction and the land was not a CDA. In
his opinion, Harbourfront Landmark is obviously too tall and incompatible with
the surrounding environment.
Developments on the north shore of Hong Kong Island should respect
the ridgeline of Victoria Peak and the ridgelines of other peaks when viewing
from Kowloon (in particular from the proposed West Kowloon Cultural
District, the Cultural Complex in Tsim Sha Tsui, and the proposed water-
front promenade in South East Kowloon). Efforts should be made to avoid
developments with excessive building height or encroachment into the
‘building-free zone’ within the view corridors.191 On the Kowloon side, there
is an uninterrupted stretch of ridgelines from Lion Rock to Kowloon Peak.
It is important to preserve the view corridor to Kowloon Peak and major
Kowloon ridgelines from the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre
in Wan Chai, from Central Pier No. 7, from Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park in
189
Planning Application Case No. A/H4/40, 2 August 1996, https://www2.ozp.tpb.gov.hk/gist/apply/
en_tc/A_H4_40_TC.pdf; see Town Planning Board website, http://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/en/plan_appli-
cation/records.html; Town Planning Board, Statutory Planning Portal 2 website, www2.ozp.tpb.gov.hk/gos/
default.aspx; Oriental Daily News, 11 July 2003, p.A47.
190
Planning Department website, http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_tc/tech_doc/hkpsg/full/ch11/ch11_
text.htm#6.2.5.
191
Planning Department website, http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_tc/tech_doc/hkpsg/full/ch11/ch11_
text.htm#6.2.5.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 365 20/08/2018 16:48
366 · MAKING HONG KONG
Sai Ying Pun, and from Quarry Bay Park in Quarry Bay. Development heights
within the view corridors of those vantage points should avoid intrusion
into the ‘building-free zone’.192 The TPB gradually started to translate such
guidelines by stipulating building height requirements and restrictions and
to introduce them into OZPs. For example, the OZPs incorporating building
height restrictions for business areas in Kowloon Bay and Kwun Tong were
gazetted in 2005.
In Hong Kong 2030 published in 2007, the Planning Department summed
up a number of problems in building design and ventilation after the reloca-
tion of the airport in 1998. In Hong Kong, years of rapid development have
transformed the urban landscape many times in the general absence of stringent
controls on the built form, other than controls provided under the Building
(Planning) Regulations, and planning/lease restrictions catering for specific
sites. Such a process has led to problems like tall buildings in a low-density
area, wall-effect development along the waterfront, ‘podium-type’ building mass
(with full site coverage to construct buildings with podiums of 15 metres high),
and the lack of view corridors and breezeways.
In Hong Kong 2030, the Planning Department notes that better design for
buildings allows visual permeability, facilitates air ventilation and creates points
of interest. It maintains that individualistic architectural design or a distinctive
frontage in the lower part of buildings is also important to enhance interest at
the street level and turn the massive structure into a more people-centred devel-
opment.193 The conventional form of high-rise developments may no longer be
welcomed unless coupled with good urban design, a better local environment
and higher visual amenity. Planning needs to be three-dimensional to foster a
good sense of space, which is about how the urban fabric is balanced and har-
monised, rather than simply tidied and organised.194
Public participation
Amendment of the Town Planning Ordinance
The government carried out a comprehensive review of the Town Planning
Ordinance in September 1987 in order to strike a balance between the gov-
ernment’s planning powers and the public’s right of participation. In 1991, the
Town Planning (Amendment) Ordinance 1991 was enacted,195 with new sections
20 to 26, thus extending planning controls to rural areas. The TPB might desig-
nate any rural areas development permission areas (DPAs) and accordingly for-
192
Planning Department website, http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_tc/tech_doc/hkpsg/full/ch11/ch11_
text.htm#6.2.5.
193
Hong Kong Planning Department, Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy: Final Report, Hong
Kong, Planning Department, 2007, p.21.
194
Hong Kong Planning Department, Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy: Final Report, Hong
Kong, Planning Department, 2007, p.23.
195
Hong Kong Town Planning Board, Town Planning Board Annual Report 1991, Hong Kong, Government
Printer, 1992, p.13.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 366 20/08/2018 16:48
Transformation after the return to China (1997–2015) · 367
mulate development plans.196 To curb the expanding disorganised uses of open
storage and port back-up in the rural New Territories, the Planning Authority
(i.e. Director of Planning) might take enforcement actions against unauthorised
developments within DPAs according to the Town Planning Ordinance.197
In order to improve the existing appeal mechanism, Ordinance No. 101
of 1991 was enacted with the addition of new sections 17A, 17B and 17C.
‘Petitions to Governor in Council’ was changed to ‘Appeals to Town Planning
Appeal Board’.198 An independent Town Planning Appeal Board was estab-
lished to handle appeals against TPB decisions on planning applications. The
Appeal Board officially came into operation on 18 November 1991. According
to section 17B of the Town Planning Ordinance, any person who is aggrieved by
a decision made by the Town Planning Board on review under section 17 may
appeal by lodging, within 60 days after the date of notification by the Town
Planning Board’s decision under section 17(6), a notice of appeal. The scope
of appeals was also expanded to include decisions by the Appeal Board to grant
planning permissions. Appeal and hearing procedures were governed by the
Town Planning (Appeal) Regulations 1991.199 Appeal procedures and consti-
tution of the Appeal Board were supplemented in Amended 22 of 1994 and
Amended 14 of 1996.
As for the appeal mechanism under the Town Planning Ordinance, Ordinance
No. 16 of 1998 was enacted with section 2A of 1998 in the first year after Hong
Kong’s return to China, empowering the TPB to appoint committees from
among its members to exercise its powers under sections 6(6), 6A, 6B, 7, 8
and 9. Section 6 was amended, authorising the TPB to deal with any objection
made under subsection (1) in respect of the same draft plan or, as the case may
be, received under subsection (8) at the same meeting. If the objector or the
objector’s authorised representative did not attend the meeting, the TPB might
proceed with the meeting and deal with the objection or adjourn it, and such
a meeting might not be adjourned more than once. Section 8 was amended,
renumbered as section 8(1) and added with subsection (2), which stipulates
that the submission of a draft plan to the Chief Executive in Council must be
made before the expiration of a period of nine months after the expiration of
the period of two months mentioned in section 5. In the case where the Town
Planning Board does make amendments to the draft plan under section 7, the
submission must be made before the expiration of a period of nine months after
the expiration both of the period of two months mentioned in section 5 and of
the period of three weeks mentioned in section 7.
In May 2003, the Government presented the Town Planning (Amendment)
196
Hong Kong Town Planning Board, Town Planning Board Annual Report 1991, Hong Kong, Government
Printer, 1992, p.13.
197
Hong Kong Town Planning Board, Town Planning Board Annual Report 1991, Hong Kong, Government
Printer, 1992, p.15.
198
For details, see the record of appeals and petitions in Hong Kong Town Planning Board, Town Planning
Board Annual Report 1991, Hong Kong, Government Printer, 1992, pp.64–66.
199
Hong Kong Town Planning Board, Town Planning Board Annual Report 1991, Hong Kong, Government
Printer, 1992, p.15.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 367 20/08/2018 16:48
368 · MAKING HONG KONG
Bill 2003 to the Legislative Council for consideration. The Town Planning
(Amendment) Ordinance 2004 was officially published in the Government Gazette
on 23 July 2004200 and came into effect on 10 June 2005.
The newly added section 12A of the Town Planning Ordinance stipulates that
any person may apply for amendment of plans. The TPB must consider the
application within three months after receipt. The applicant is entitled to attend
the Town Planning Board meeting and to be heard. Besides, new provisions
were added in sections 12A, 16 and 17, further enhancing the transparency in
the formulation of plans and the handling of planning applications. They were
also intended to offer more opportunities for public participation while main-
taining the efficiency of the planning application system. The original section 6
was repealed and replaced by new sections 6 and 6A to 6H.
All new plans, amendments to approved plans or amendments to draft
plans must be exhibited for two months for public inspection. During this
two-month exhibition period, any person may make representation (either
supportive or adverse) to the Town Planning Board. The TPB must publish
the representations for three weeks for public comments and make avail-
able all representations for public inspection. During the first three weeks of
the public inspection period of the representations, any person may make a
comment on the representations (either supportive or adverse). The TPB
must hold a hearing to consider the representations and comments. The
persons who have submitted representations or comments may attend the
hearing and be heard by the TPB. After the hearing, the TPB will decide
whether to propose amendments to the draft plan to meet the representa-
tions. If the TPB decides to propose amendments to the draft plan, such
proposed amendments will be published again for further representations.
During the first three weeks of the public inspection period of the proposed
amendments, any person (other than the persons who have submitted repre-
sentations and comments related to the proposed amendments) may make
further representation in respect of the proposed amendments (either sup-
portive or adverse) to the Town Planning Board. If opposing further repre-
sentations are received, the TPB must hold another hearing to consider all
the further representations, at which the persons who have submitted the rel-
evant representations, comments and further representations may attend and
be heard by the TPB. After the further hearing, the TPB will decide whether
to make amendments to the draft plan. Upon completion of the represen-
tation consideration process, the TPB is required to submit the draft plan
incorporating the amendments together with the representations, comments
200
Review of the Town Planning Ordinance of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong Institute of Planners,
1990, p.2; Ordinances of Hong Kong for the Years 1982, 1988, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2004, Hong Kong,
Government Printer; Planning Department website, http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_tc/tech_doc/tp_bill/
pamphlet2004; Town Planning (Amendment) Ordinance 1956; Town Planning (Amendment) Ordinance 1969;
Department of Justice, Bilingual Laws Information System website, http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_pdf.
nsf/6799165D2FEE3FA94825755E0033E532/BA93A4BB4780F729482575EE003FA8E3?OpenDocum
ent; ‘Town Planning (Amendment) Ordinance 2004’ (information pamphlet), http://www.pland.gov.hk/
pland_tc/tech_doc/tp_bill/pamphlet2004/index.html.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 368 20/08/2018 16:48
Transformation after the return to China (1997–2015) · 369
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.