立場新聞 Stand News

【反對合和二期修訂】法例服務社會 不是服務地產商

2015/8/25 — 11:36

合和中心二期項目概念圖(圖片來源:合和實業有限公司)

合和中心二期項目概念圖(圖片來源:合和實業有限公司)

(編按:本文為作者於去年八月寫給城規會的信函,內容為反對合和實業於去年關於合和中心二期發展計劃的修訂申請。合和中心二期項目早在 1994 年已獲城規會批准建設一座 93 層高 Y 型酒店。2004 年,合和申請把發展方案修訂為建設一座 93 層高屏風型酒店加會議中心,但當地居民強烈反對,認為會造成通風不佳等問題。2009 年,在政府、合和及地區居民商討下,城規會終通過把發展方案訂為 55 層 Y 型酒店,並不設會議中心。然而在去年,合和再度向城規會提出修訂方案,又嘗試把大樓改為屏風型設計。建議再三引起地區人士不滿。王式英在此信中,直指該修訂為「毫無理據、濫用程序」。合和最終在去年底宣布重新採用之前的 Y 型設計,但會議廳的修訂則繼續申請。

一年以來,王式英多次跟進事態發展,並去信城規會。本文為他致城規會的最新一封信,文字經過整理。原文題為「Re A/H5/403 August 2015 Submission of William Waung -Objections to Hopewell II」,現題由編輯所擬。前文按此。)

廣告

I object to the Application.  My name is William Waung.

I would like to rely on the Contents of the Submissions of Roger Emmerton:-
Document 1 dated 31st July 2015 (15 pages);
Document 2 being Annex EEE relied on at paragraph 15(a) in document 1 hereof by Mr. Emmerton; 
Document 3 dated 15th June 2015 (4 pages).
In addition to the above, I have also the following Comments:-

廣告

1.In respect of the full Submission of Mr. Emmerton dated 31.7.2015, I would like to place particular reliance on paragraphs 7, 8, 11, 12, 23 and 27 of Document 1.

2. In respect of the crucial matter of the road safety referred to in the Section “Proposed Road Works - Entrance & Exit” (paragraph 13 to 20, pages 7 to 10) of Document 1, I like to place particular reliance and emphasis on paragraphs 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20. My wife and I (we are respectively age 71 and 69), we live on Kennedy Road and our daughter, son-in-law and baby grand-daughter (age 1 year) live on Kennedy Road (three buildings away).   My daughter is a working mother.  My wife and I therefore as grandparents have assumed a great deal of the duties of looking after the welfare of the baby grand-daughter. On a daily basis, we regularly together or singly travel on foot anything from two to 10 times between the two homes.  The stretch of relevant Kennnedy Road is therefore extremely well known to us and important to us.  We often walk with the grand-daughter, in our arms, with her in the pram and its full contents, with shopping bags and with umbrella and negotiating the very narrow footpath with heavy vehicular and human traffic.  Safety is therefore our first and foremost concern.  The proposed Kennedy Road roadworks of Hopewell set out in the Application are simply not safe, for us and for all road users (on foot, in cars or minibuses etc.).  It is CRIMINAL, if TPB or the Government allows this Application to succeed.   Blood will be on  the hands of everyone who supports this Application and everyone who fails to do everything in its power to STOP it.

3. The history of the Hopewell Application shows that from last year when the Application was first launched to August 2015, the Respondents Objectors to the Application had to lodge no less than 5 separate Objections (including the August 2015 Objections).   At page 1-2 of Document 1, reference is made to no less than 4 separate MPC Meetings where the Board granted 4 separate Adjournments to the Applicant at the request of the Applicants in almost identical terms:-
“After deliberation, the Committee decided to defer a decision on the application as requested by the applicant pending the submission of further information from the applicant. The Committee agreed that the application should be submitted for its consideration within two months from the date of receipt of further information from the application.  If the further information submitted by the applicant was not substantial and could be processed within a short time, the application could be submitted to an earlier meeting for the Committee’s consideration.  The Committee also agreed to advise the applicant that one month was allowed for preparation of the submission of the further information, and no further deferment would be granted unless under very special circumstances.”

4. It was irrational and totally wrongful exercise of its powers, duties and discretion by the granting of repeated adjournments to the Applicant to enable the Applicant to improve its inadequate case.  No reasons were given or special circumstances identified or set out as to justify each and every adjournment granted  to the Applicant.  Every subsequent adjournment required more compelling special reasons and circumstances to justify such additional adjournment.  Repeated adjournments or deferrals are in the circumstance, more than mere tactics of the Applicant.  It is a serious denial of justice by the TPB, by its failure to dismiss much earlier the Application, when it was clear that at all times, that it was the burden of the Applicant  to satisfy the TPB that it had put forward a wholly viable case on the Application.  That burden to show a viable case on the Application is on the Applicant at all times from the launching of the Application to meeting and answering promptly all the objections raised by the Objectors and the Community.  The fact that four substantial adjournments were granted to the Applicant and that 5 separate Objections had to be given over the 12 months plus period is an indication of the bias shown in favour of the Applicant.  By repeatedly giving time and adjournment to the Applicant when the Application ought to have been dismissed, the TPB displayed and displays either a bias in favour of the Applicant or at least the appearance of bias, thereby doing great injustice to Hong Kong, the Community and to the Objectors.   No decision in favour of the Applicant can be allowed to stand.  In the circumstances, if the present Application is not dismissed immediately, then I submit that the TPB should either be totally replaced (for no further public confidence can be placed on the present composition of the TPB) or the Court of Hong Kong should order that the Application be dismissed, preferably the latter as so much public, Government and community time, effort and expense had been consumed and that the credibility of the system of town planning must be restored.   It can only be restored, after the dismissal of the Application, by a new system of town planning which is fair, just, impartial, neutral, public and properly accountable  to the public and which will restore public confidence in the fair, just, impartial, neutral, public and properly accountable consideration of planning applications.  Under the new system, no appearance can be given or can arise that the Government is on the side of the developers and against the interests of the public and the community.   It must be remembered at all times that the object of the Ordinance is the promotion of the Health, Safety, Convenience and General Welfare of the Community.   The Government and the TPB have lost their way.  They forget that the Ordinance is not to serve the private developers but to serve the Community.      

發表意見