Policy Statement & Submission

6 November 2009


Council for Sustainable Development
c/o Sustainable Development Division
Environment Bureau
M/F Murray Building
Garden Road
Central Hong Kong

Attention: Mr Bernard Chan, Chairman


Dear Mr Chan,

Measures to Foster a Quality & Sustainable Environment

There are many proposals under discussion and if implemented could all have far reaching effects, particularly on individual property owners of older buildings ready for renovation and redevelopment. It is quite apparent that the community does not have a clear idea of what it wants and how to get it. It is equally clear that the levers of Government are not operating as intended and even building professionals, let alone the public, are hard pressed to work out which set of existing systems should be changed and in what order.

1. The first item in the paper focuses on GFA, which of course is a key item to a developer

Existing mostly discretionary exemptions and bonuses have all been devised to answer specific issues and in many ways can be said to have been successful. The latest 'Green features' have certainly been adopted widely and created better living conditions for the residents. However some would say at the cost of the cityscape by increasing the bulk of buildings.

Widespread removal of the existing GFA exemptions would clearly have a major impact on future city renewal and new development. Indeed many renewal projects would not be financially feasible. New developments would remain feasible but at the cost to the community of lower income to Government and reduced amenity to residents. Obviously this does not apply across the board. And perhaps this a key point. Some Universal concessions or restrictions do not give us the answer we need. Discretion relating to site-specific attributes is necessary to provide the amenity, viability and cityscape we want.

Achieving both site-specific flexibility and wider scale district planning seems to be the requirement. Recent widespread use of the OZP system to restrict most site development heights, without site specific consideration of other issues, has clearly not been a success as it has resulted in the 'Wall effect' that was hoped to be avoided as well as other unexpected side effects.

So if the view of the community is that the current collection of Land Policy rules, conditions, restrictions and incentives is producing the wrong effect in terms of urban planning, and remembering we all have an economic interest as owners or tax payers, then we should think carefully about the collective effect of proposals, and especially think about the timing and speed of implementation. Developers like all investors need sufficient predictability to take on the risks. If the rules and regs become unpredictable the risk will rise and with it the price.

Two further items come to mind:

i) Obsolete Industrial buildings vacated by the move of industry to the north. Many of these can be redeveloped to Residential use with open space. The current I/O or commercial bias is not what the city needs any longer especially in Kowloon. The Planning Department has to accept change happens and that the supposed conflict with Industrial and residential can be overcome. This alone will add a huge quantity of urban land for future residential development.

ii) The planners can develop lower density rules to reflect new aspirations. And of course another huge land supply at Kai Tak could adopt lower density principles with similar beneficial effect. Both should be ahead of time to ensure maximum predictability and flexibility.

2. The second item in the paper focuses mainly on Environmental Performance of buildings

Clearly buildings are major contributors to aspects of greenhouse gas and pollution. Much of this is indirect via use of electricity for air-conditioning, which needs to be dealt with via both the power policy and the building policy.

The GFA incentives relating to Green features are mostly but not all positive in this respect. For example balconies do provide shading, which reduces solar gain through the external walls. They also provide amenity. And they add little to bulk.

The proposals to improve energy efficiency performance need to differentiate between building types. The proposed mandatory Building Energy Codes are a good step in the right direction. However for residential buildings they focus only on common areas, which of course form the minor part of energy consumption. Perhaps an expansion of the product energy-labeling programme could incentivise installation of the best class of appliance rather than the cheapest and so achieve notable improvements in residential building energy performance

The proposals for commercial buildings should and will incentivise better performance of buildings in use as well as in design. They need also to keep the targets moving ahead so that we have continuous improvement.

3. The other item the paper focuses on is the site specific planning of projects.

This gets mixed up with the GFA issues where setback and ground floor dedication is an objective. At the end of the day if bonus for dedication (and therefore reduced Ground floor GFA) is not acceptable for reasons of bulk, then public resumption is the only other fair approach. It is probably cost neutral to the government in the long run.

Provision of Public Space in private developments has not proven a wild success of late. The solution surely then is to ensure more publicly owned land, often currently zoned GIC or Other Uses can be considered for use as public space. This may mean other public uses are reduced but as ever this is a compromise that needs to be struck. Provision of Public Space by the Government has not always proven a wild success either. We would prefer to see a continuation of incentives for the private sector to implement the same to supplement public provision. For instance, excellent Public Planning Gain is often on offer to the Town Planning Board (TPB) in support of S16 Planning Applications and notwithstanding any positive thinking on the same by the TPB and/or Planning Department, there is normally an objection to it from Lands Department on implementation/lease conditions grounds. Government should set up a think tank to resolve this implementation/inter-departmental hurdle and not continue to lose golden opportunities for the public to enjoy open space that is being offered by the private sector only to go into the "too difficult" basket. This matter is now even more pressing considering that private sector offers to conserve heritage buildings, as Public Planning Gain is now having the same problem.

Another key site-specific issue is that of Site Coverage. Apart from Lease restrictions, there is a normal allowance that 100% site coverage to a certain height shall be permitted. This is usually 15 m. Where we have very narrow streets perhaps this could be reduced to the same measurement as the width of the street. This would help street ventilation and reduce perceived bulk at street level.

In addition to the above comments it should be noted that it is necessary to review any measures in the context of the market as a whole - not simply from a developer or a consumer perspective. Much improvement in building design could be achieved by updating the building regulations and a comprehensive review of the planning process and guidelines could contribute significantly to urban planning standards and sustainability going forward. A more holistic and district based planning culture is required with height, bulk and other issues being considered in the context of their surroundings, not simply on a site by site basis. The concerns attached by many to this particular engagement exercise is that it focuses only a limited number of issues which whilst important cannot themselves bring the improvements in environment and sustainability that Hong Kong should be seeking to achieve.

At the end of the day, the public needs to be reminded that there is a price to pay for the reduction of building bulk and imposing more restrictions on building design towards a better built environment, in the form of lower development value and less incentive for redevelopment. The importance of economic growth and creation of employment should not be overlooked. The community needs to see this full picture and find the right balance between the economic, environmental and social objectives.

We trust the comments made here will contribute to the development of appropriate policy in the future.