The comments on the second round of public consultation by the Town Planning Board (TPB) on the Area 6f and 10b development proposals from Hong Kong Resort Company Limited (HKR) are now available for viewing at the TPB offices in North Point.
A total of 2,234 responses were received for 6f in Round 2 (2,257 for Round 1), and 2,330 for 10b (2,149 for Round 1).
Submissions 2863 to 4139 for Area 6f, or 57.1% of the total, were received in a single bundle submitted by hand to the TPB at the same time. All are in favour of the proposal and, judging from the nature of the comments, come from people outside DB.
Links to all comments received for Area 6f in Round 2 are available after the break. Continue reading Area 6f — All Public Comments from Round 2
The Parkvale Village Owners Committee (VOC) has submitted a major review of the Area 6f development proposal to the Town Planning Board in the latest round of public consultation on HKR’s application to amend the Discovery Bay Outline Zoning Plan, which ended at midnight on 15 July.
No submission was made by the Peninsula VOC. In fact, the topic was not even on the agenda of the Peninsula VOC meeting of 5 July. This is surprising, as the Area 10b plan proposes that a Sewage Treatment Works be built at the entrance to Peninsula Village, after levelling the existing wooded hillock.
HKR’s consultant, Masterplan Limited, submitted HKR’s reply to the public comments to the Secretariat of the Town Planning Board on 6th June, 2016. In the covering letter, it said:
We have also reviewed the public comments received during notification of the application. It is considered that many of the concerns raised are also addressed in the response to the departmental comments, and does not require separation response. However, we would like to specifically address few issues in Annex E in the enclosure.
The claim that many of the concerns raised in the public consultation are addressed in the departmental comments and does not require separation response (sic) is disrespectful of those who submitted their comments during the public consultation and disrespectful of the town planning process. Continue reading “We value your comments…”
In its original submission, HKR clung to the hope that Areas 6f and 10b would be served by government water. Alternate supply proposals were sketched out in the briefest terms.
Now that the government has confirmed that it will not supply potable water to the new developments, it is essential that HKR provide detailed studies and plans to show that its proposals are viable – before the TPB approves the rezoning application.
Water Supplies Department (WSD) is far from convinced of the viability of HKR’s proposals. In its comment on the HKR proposal, it stated “…we have reservation on the rationality of this arrangement…”. Continue reading Time for a little rationality
The existing zoning for Area 10b includes an LPG store/dangerous goods store. The HKR proposal will remove this zoning.
Serious concerns were raised about the deletion of the LPG store/dangerous goods store in the previous round of public comments on the new development proposals. However, HKR did not respond to the comments and has given no information on the location of replacement facilities. Continue reading Dangerous game
HKR proposes that members of the public shall have full access to the open space at Areas 6f and 10b. The Town Planning Board should pay due attention to the relevant provisions under the Land Grant and the DMC when considering these proposals.
If the proposals for provision of public open space are approved, the TPB should set out clear conditions specifying that HKR and HKR alone shall be responsible for all maintenance and management of the public areas. This is the established practice in DB, and must be maintained in all future developments. Continue reading Public Playground
During the first round of public consultation on the Area 6f proposals, the topic that attracted the greatest number of objections was HKR’s proposal to use the brick roadway at the Woods as the main access route to the new tower blocks.
The submissions pointed out that Parkvale owners have been paying for maintenance of this roadway for the past 28 years. Therefore, the road must be Village Common Area, and HKR has no right to provide access through Parkvale to Area 6f.
HKR replied that it has not designated the road as Village Common Area, and therefore it retains “ownership” of the road. As such, it has the right to grant a right of way over the road in favour of Area 6f.
This defies logic. Continue reading Mine, all mine!!!
In order to proceed with the development at Area 10b, HKR needs to show that it has permission to reclaim the sea at Nim Shue Wan.
In its initial application to the Town Planning Board, HKR claimed that Gazette Notice 710 of 1976 gave it that right. When multiple submissions pointed out that this was not true, HKR had to back-peddle. It now claims that Plan 11317 dated 21 Feb, 1978, gives it the required authority. Continue reading Walk on water
HKR received a firm slap on the wrist from the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) In the Government comments on HKR’s application to develop areas 6f and 10b. In unusually blunt language, EPD took HKR to task for suggesting that sewage from the 6f and 10b developments could be treated at the Siu Ho Wan Sewage Treatment Works (SHWSTW). Here is EPD’s comment: Continue reading You can fool some people some of the time…
HKR is highly dismissive of comments from owners and residents on the 6f and 10b applications in its latest Town Planning Board (TPB) submissions. It ignored most comments, and relegated the few that it chose to address to an appendix at the back. Even then, it resorted to half-truths and slight-of-hand in its replies.
Take HKR’s reply on population. HKR’s original submission advised: “There are currently around 8,300 nos. of residential flat with total population around 15,000.” Continue reading Just how many people really live in DB?