Town Planning Board,
I oppose application no. A/NE-SSH/120, below are my reasons:-
1) Overdevelopment without significant grounds
The developer applied for an increase of 20% of the total floor area and increased the height of the building, from the 24-story to the 31-story, from the original 4930 units to the current 9,500 units, the increase in population is double, from 140,000 to 28 10,000 (data 14100 increased to 28,500, according to government statistics, the proportion of population units is estimated by 3:1). The developers have significantly changed their plans to increase the supply of luxury homes. They simply cannot respond to and meet the housing needs of Hong Kong. The demand for housing cannot solve by building more private apartments or houses. As a reference, private housing in Wu Kai Sha is unaffordable for the general public of Hong Kong.
2) Community facilities and infrastructure are controlled by developers and public interest cannot be secured.
In the Master Layout Plan (MLP), the developer usually promises to build community facilities, schools, roads, sports fields, etc. as a bargaining power. Even the developer runs the operation and management, it does not mean the public interest can be secured because the developer will take the lead, not the Hong Kong government. Will the government be accountable? It is a mystery. Taking public space as examples, many public spaces under the private partnership projects are not freely used or easily accessible by the public. Examples like the public spaces in Times Square and Discovery Park, the planning intention is in vain and the public interest is not served. Furthermore, it is doubtful that a certain group of the public will be more privileged than some in using of the public facilities, such as transport facilities, car parks, sports centres. Thus, the public interest is totally unsecured. Due to the impotence of the existing Hong Kong government, the developer always takes the lead in public-private partnership development and the public interest cannot be well protected.
3) Improper planning regardless of the real situation
3.1 Unnecessary and improper forest slashing The fengshui forest in the north and the northwest of Che Ha village has been cleaned up and will become an open space. It is insensible to turn an ecological valuable land into an open space. What a poor planning! Otherwise, it is suspicious that some lands will be reserved for further development in near future. On another hand, the conservation of the northeast fengshui forest is a greenwash practice and the ecological education trail is just a gimmick, like Noah Park or Ma Wan Park Nature Garden on Park Island.
3.2 Groundless transportation planning
Regarding the roundabout of the application, three roundabouts will be built within one kilometre. Driving from Tseng Tau Village to Ma On Shan will need to pass through four roundabouts. The land at the center of the roundabout will be wasted. The cost of a roundabout is more expensive, and the footbridge is inconvenient. In view of the existing traffic situation in Shap Sz Heung, it is groundless that constructing 4 roundabouts can be the mitigation for the heavy traffic flow in the future. Additionally, the speeding problem has already caused nuisance and danger for Sha Sz Heung residents. It caused fatal accidents involving school children, adult and the elderly. The living of feral cattle is also endangered.
All in all, this overdeveloped planning application in the name of public-private partnership is absolutely unfavourable for the public interest.