TOWN PLANNING BOARD Minutes of 441st Meeting of the Metro ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

- 12 - from Mr. Victor S. Y. Yeung, Central & Western District Councillor and one from Belcher’s Area Promotion Association, objecting to the application were tabled in the meeting. Presentation and Question Sessions 14. Mr. K.S. Ng, STP/HK, presented the application and covered the following aspects as detailed in the Paper : (a) background to the application highlighting that the application was submitted by the same applicant of a previously rejected application No. A/H1/92 for a 29-storey hotel with a PR of 15. The application was rejected by the Committee on 25.6.2010; (b) the proposed hotel highlighting that the current proposal was similar to the previously rejected scheme except that the PR was reduced from 15 to 11.997 and the total gross floor area (GFA) from 2,379.971m 2 to 1,689.036m 2 . The building height was also reduced from 98.4mPD (29 storeys) to 81.2mPD (23 storeys) while the number of guest rooms remained unchanged (i.e. 50); (c) departmental comments –the Commissioner for Transport (C for T) has no in-principle objection to the application in view of the small size of the hotel. Should the application be approved, the applicant should be advised that Yat Fu Lane might become a cul-de-sac and the Government might implement traffic management measures such as no stopping restriction zones thereat as necessary. The Commissioner for Tourism supported the application as the hotel development would increase the number of hotel rooms, broaden the range of accommodations for visitor. The Chief Architect/Advisory and Statutory Compliance, Architectural Services Department commented that the proposed hotel development would have a similar building height with some of the surrounding buildings. No objection/adverse from other concerned government departments was received;
- 13 - (d) District Officer (Central & Western) advised that the Central and Western District Council (C&WDC) had objected to the previous application for hotel use (No. A/H1/92) at the application site. It was expected that some DC members would raise concern on the current application given its similar nature with the previous application. In particular, it was noted that three DC members, Mr. Stephen Chan, Mr. Yeung Sui-yin and Ms. Cheng Lai-king, had raised strong concerns over the current application such as possible impact of the proposed hotel on traffic, environment and air ventilation. Through their daily liaison works, they were aware that the above concerns were also shared by some local groups. The Committee was advised to give due consideration to these concerns; (e) during the statutory publication period, 766 public comments objecting to the application were received. The major grounds of objection included that the proposed hotel would further aggravate the air ventilation problem, generate adverse traffic impacts in the area, affect pedestrian safety, further aggravate sewerage blockage problem at Yat Fu Lane and affect the business of the shops at the street. The site was not suitable for hotel development and the proposed hotel was incompatible with the surrounding residential developments. There was sufficient hotel accommodation in the area. The proposed hotel would cause security and safety problems, adversely affect sunlight penetration and the living quality of the local residents and endanger health of local elderly. The applicant’s traffic assessment was not comprehensive nor convincing. No traffic, environmental, sewerage and drainage impact assessment had been done; and (f) the Planning Department (PlanD)’s views – PlanD had reservation on the application based on the assessment made in paragraph 10 of the Paper. The application site was located within an area with a mixture of residential developments with commercial uses on ground floors. The proposed hotel was considered not incompatible with the surrounding developments in terms of land use. C for T had no in-principle objection to the application in view of the small size of the hotel (50 rooms) which would only attract
Page 1 and 2: Present TOWN PLANNING BOARD Minutes
Page 3 and 4: Agenda Item 1 - 3 - Confirmation of
Page 5 and 6: Agenda Item 4 Section 16 Applicatio
Page 7 and 8: - 7 - application site was granted
Page 9 and 10: - 9 - (a) background to the applica
Page 11: - 11 - approval to the satisfaction
Page 15 and 16: - 15 - such information was provide
Page 19 and 20: - 19 - previous hospital case in te
Page 23 and 24: - 23 - demolish the Garage for open
Page 25 and 26: - 25 - (DO(C&W), HAD) advised that
Page 27 and 28: - 27 - new buildings, the applicant
Page 29 and 30: - 29 - (u) as regards the archaeolo
Page 31 and 32: - 31 - 34. A Member asked if more i
Page 33 and 34: - 33 - according to the technical c
Page 35 and 36: - 35 - deck at Old Bailey Wing and
Page 37 and 38: - 37 - (b) to note the comments of
Page 39 and 40: - 39 - 50. The Committee noted that
Page 41 and 42: - 41 - (c) departmental comments -
Page 43 and 44: Agenda Item 13 Section 12A Applicat
Page 45: - 45 - meeting. The Secretary expla

TOWN PLANNING BOARD Minutes of 441st Meeting of the Metro ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?