Minutes of 964 Meeting of the Town Planning Board held on 20.8 ...

- 46 -
building blocks <strong>the</strong>rein was under a renovation scheme administered by <strong>the</strong> DEVB, this
Member considered that o<strong>the</strong>r mechanisms were available for engaging <strong>the</strong> public in <strong>the</strong>
revitalisation process <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> site, and it was not necessary to tighten <strong>the</strong> planning control <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> representation site for <strong>the</strong> sake <strong>of</strong> seeking public views for such purpose.
57. The Secretary invited Members to express <strong>the</strong>ir views on <strong>the</strong> proposed
amendments to <strong>the</strong> Notes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject “OU” zone which were tabled by R1 at <strong>the</strong> meeting.
She reiterated R1’s proposals as follows:
(a) to reduce <strong>the</strong> maximum GFA <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> site to 15,800m 2 , which was
equivalent to <strong>the</strong> existing GFA <strong>of</strong> Block A, Block B and <strong>the</strong> JPC building.
This would imply that, if <strong>the</strong> suggestion was adopted, structures that were
GFA accountable, such as bridges and covered walkways, could not be
built on <strong>the</strong> representation site unless planning permission was obtained;
(b) to increase <strong>the</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> open space to not less than 1,400m 2 , which
might imply that <strong>the</strong> area between Blocks A and B had to be dedicated for
open space use, particularly in <strong>the</strong> scenario that <strong>the</strong> JPC Building was
retained. This would limit <strong>the</strong> flexibility in <strong>the</strong> future design and re-use <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> site;
(c) <strong>the</strong> public open space should be ‘grassed’;
(d) to move ‘School’, ‘Educational Institution’ and ‘Government Use’ from
Column 1 to Column 2 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Notes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> “OU” zone. This would mean
that using <strong>the</strong> site for school or education institution purpose would require
planning permission from <strong>the</strong> <strong>Board</strong>; and
(e) to delete <strong>the</strong> ‘Information Technology and Telecommunications
Industries’ from <strong>the</strong> said Notes. In this regard, it should be noted that
according to <strong>the</strong> DoTs, creative industries included information
technology and telecommunications industries.
58. Regarding R1’s proposal <strong>of</strong> requiring more uses to obtain planning permission