To Town Planning Board,
To Town Planning Board,
I object to the planning application number A/H21/150. My reasons are as follows:
The Quarry Bay Waterfront Promenade connects the Quarry Bay Park to the Aldrich bay area. It is a unique large-scale waterfront space in the developed Eastern District and has been well received by the public. The application is located on the waterfront, and the proposed development is too large and dense, beyond the acceptable level of the community.
In the current Outline Zoning Plan, the height restriction for the application site is 35 mPD. Among the proposed application, three buildings have three applications for relaxation, one office (41 mPD), one hotel (39 mPD) and one hotel (41 mPD). The majority of the area is for commercial use and the applicant has not provided sufficient justification for the relaxation of the height restrictions.
The proposed application for the construction of an office and four hotels is incompatible with the adjacent planning intention of “Open Space”; The applicant only provided a limited area of “landscape platforms” and “ground floor” for the connection of the Quarry Bay Waterfront Promenade. These limited area does not prove any sufficient waterfront space for the public.
The application location relatively deviates from the MTR station and the main public transportation route. It is accessed by a tortuous walking route. Only one proposed pedestrian footbridge is used as a connection, which does not provide a tortuous pedestrian route, the site is not suitable for large-scale office and hotel development.
The proposed bridge will be built across the Eastern Corridor and Quarry Bay Park. It will affect the surrounding landscape to the adjacent primary and secondary schools. According to the Quarry Bay Outline Zoning Plan, the elevated pedestrian bridge is only one of the pedestrian route routes. Therefore, in respect to the accessibility of the site, the Town Planning Board must consider other suitable and feasible alternative routes to avoid nuisance to nearby stakeholders and inconsistency with the surrounding environment.
The glass curtain wall of the building will disturb the residents as it causes reflection when the morning sun rises, which will seriously affect the apartments in the community.
The pet garden at the waterfront location is included in the proposed application site, which implies the removal of the current pet garden. The developer has not implemented the rebuild pet garden within the proposed site and should be responsible for the rebuilding of the pet park. It is irresponsible for the developer to leave the rebuild plan to the government.