Comments on Lau Fau Shan, Tsim Bei Tsui and Pak Nai Development Proposals - 對流浮山、尖鼻咀及白泥發展計劃的意見

Comments on Lau Fau Shan, Tsim Bei Tsui and Pak Nai Development Proposals

 

The Hong Kong Institute of Planners (HKIP) supports the development of the Northern Metropolis as the engine for innovation and technology development while actively preserving the precious wetland and natural environment, and ensuring abundant housing supply with quality.  We emphasize the need to strike a balance between economic development and conservation, meeting present needs while ensuring a sustainable future, and maintaining the openness for free flow of capital, resources and information globally while respecting its local character.

 

Planning different areas within the Northern Metropolis requires strategic thinking to determine the right positioning, thorough public engagement to understand stakeholders’ needs and concerns, and detailed coordination within and among Government bodies, private sectors, education institutes, transportation and utility services providers and local communities for successful execution.  With these principles in mind, we have the following comments on the newly released Lau Fau Shan, Tsim Bei Tsui and Pak Nai Development Proposal (LFS Proposal):

 

1.               Comprehensive Planning and Economic Strategy

  • A comprehensive planning and economic strategy is needed with full consideration of LFS’s locational strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.   The following questions would need to be answered and fully addressed before the plan is executed:

  • (1) what role LFS could play to bring in the best values to Hong Kong and at the same time complement with the existing establishment in Nanshan and Qianhaiunder Hong Kong’s One-Country Two-Systems;

  • (2) whether and how far this role would be dependent on the key transport existing and planned infrastructure connecting to the traditional Core Business Districts in Hong Kong and also to Shenzhen; and

  • (3) how it would be affected if the proposed HK Island West – Hung Shui Kiu Rail Link under the Kau Yi Chau Artificial Island Project is substantially delayed?

  • There should be a clear positioning of the different Innovation and Technology (I&T) Hubs and extensive land reserved or proposed at different locations of the Northern Metropolis. A practical implementation strategy in the short to medium term is also required to prevent planning blight, development pressure or speculations at or around some ecologically sensitive locations, and over or abortive investment on land and infrastructure planning and development.

  • ‘Digital Technology Hub’ promoting integration of traditional and new economies in areas such as Fintech, smart living and digital entertainment is proposed.  Yet, the choice of location for the hub in LFS should be further justified. Consolidation of resources in the San Tin Technopole first to form one sizeable cluster instead of dispersing loosely over several districts should be considered.  Creating a critical mass is essential for its success.

  • LFS is a proposed extension of Hung Shui Kiu/ Ha Tsuen New Development Area (HSK/HT NDA).  There is however no information provided on the revised total population, total number of flats and total employment of the NDA as a whole.  There is also no information on the planned population profile to match with the economic land use, intended home and job balance, commuting patterns and the adequacy of transport and other infrastructure support in short, medium and long terms for HSK/HT NDA and LFS, all having an important bearing on the success or failure of the whole NDA.  These aspects should be included.

  • Along the environmentally sensitive Deep Bay and adjacent to the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site, ‘Eco-tourism Destination’ and ‘Coastal Protection Park’ are proposed.  The concepts of retail, dining and entertainment and performance venue are not compatible with the ecologically sensitive and tranquil character of the Tsim Bei Tsui and Pak Nei Areas, and any displacement of the natural habitat and character in particular is also not justified.

 

2.        Alignment with I&T Development Strategy

  • While the Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Development Blueprint was promulgated in 2022, it did not mention how land use and infrastructure planning could align with the proposed strategies (e.g. to enhance the I&T ecosystem and promote “new industrialization”, to enlarge the I&T talent pool to create strong impetus for growth) to facilitate the realization of short to medium-term targets.  Innovation, Technology and Industry Bureau (ITIB) should be the key driver providing solid inputs on the spatial, technical, infrastructural requirements with the right timeframe expected on the maturity of different factors, to attract the right I&T companies and talents to settle in the Northern Metropolis including LFS.

  • The extensive land reservation and land formation for various I&T hubs, e.g. Lok Ma Chau Loop, San Tin Technopole, New Territories North, Ma Liu Shui Reclamation, HSK and LFS should be reviewed and justified in a holistic policy driven and market response context.

  • It was however astonished to note that in a recent Public Consultation held for the proposal, there was no representative from the ITIB present to clarify/justify on the Plan under consultation.

 

3.        Infrastructure-led Development

  • LFS is a remote location in the Hong Kong context and a digital hub to support the businesses and professional services still needs convenient link to the main urban area for an effective I&T ecosystem.  Given the experience of the existing Cyberport and Science Park, the uncertainty in the timing of the strategic rail and highway links is a concern for the attractiveness to the market and of the job places.

  • While it is good to note that the proposed Smart and Green Mass Transit System in HSK/HT NDA is kept in the latest LFS proposal with a new Green Transport Corridor along the Deep Bay Coastal Area, their actual mode chosen, preliminary technical feasibility, outline economic viability and actual timing of implementation will be very crucial to the chance of success of the proposed land use pattern, including the necessary support to the high-density residential communities as well as the I&T and tourism facilities.  There is no clear indication on the timing and inter-dependency of major infrastructure networks within the Study Area.  The unfortunate lessons learnt from our Kai Tak Cruise Terminal and the non-delivery of the Monorail in Kowloon East should not be forgotten.  Those important studies, even broad-brush at the beginning, still demand for real railway and transport operational experts’ input. 

 

4.        Respecting Long-term Planning Intention

  • While some modifications to meet market changes are expected and flexibility should be built in, drastic strategic and directional changes without strong justifiable reasons should be avoided to preserve the overall coherence and long-term goals and benefits.  Lessons from the past, such as the conversion of sites reserved for HKSTP’s expansion to residential use in Pak Shek Kok, or turning Cyberport’s I&T sites into luxurious Residence Bel-air, should not be repeated.

5.     Creating an Appropriate Vibrant Community

  • There is no information on the housing mix and population profile as well as other planning proposals so as to make HSK/HT NDA including LFS a balanced, inclusive and livable community.  People-centric planning should be demonstrated.

  • Creating a vibrant, round-the-clock community with complementary attractions and happenings including sometimes in evenings and weekends, satisfying the aspiration of the I&T workforce, would be essential.  In the current LFS plan, such provision is not addressed, and we expect to have more information from the land-use and urban design perspective before the Recommended Outline Development Plan (RODP) is released.  Being an extension of the HSK/HT NDA, careful study on the appropriate mix of Live-Work-Play balance and its optimal state is important, not to mention avoiding the Tin Shui Wai ‘City of Sadness’ from happening again.

 6.       Urban Design and Sustainability

  • An overall urban design for the NDA, incorporating both LFS and HSK/HT NDA, should be included to demonstrate a holistic planning and urban design for the whole area.

  • Nature-Rural-Urban integration should be achieved, instead of only rural-urban integration.  A gradation of development intensities and compatible uses should be planned in LFS not jeopardizing the rural and natural character to be retained in relevant parts of the NDA extension.

  • The perspective renderings did not illustrate any industrial, open storage, port back-up and logistics uses realistically likely to remain on-site (at least in the coming 10-15 years). They will become close interfaces to the new proposed uses such as the high-density residential sites with a plot ratio of 6.5.  Before the opening of the LFS Station and/or the detouring Environmentally Friendly Transport System (EFTS), serious interfacing problems could happen with the heavy industrial traffic remained.  This would negatively affect the attractiveness of the I&T facilities as well as those tourism related facilities.

  • A design solution for Tin Ying Road, which currently segregates Tin Shui Wai from the LFS area, is necessary. 

  • Integration with the Zero Carbon goals should also be considered.

 

7.       Coordination with Other Planned Mega Projects

  • The implementation programme, population/economic land intake and phasing strategy of LFS should be considered comprehensively alongside other major projects planned such as Kau Yi Chau Artificial Islands and Ma Liu Shui reclamation. A holistic I&T development strategy, differentiating functions between these projects, should be presented.  Timelines for the first population intake must align well with the transportation and infrastructure completion dates.  

 

8.        Public Engagement Process

  • A formal and thorough public engagement process should be conducted when the RODP with more details is available.  This process should precede the statutory planning process.

 

HKIP urge careful consideration of the aforementioned comments in realizing the vision for the Northern Metropolis and the specific LFS Proposal.

 

  

Public Affairs Committee
The Hong Kong Institute of Planners
5 May 2024

對流浮山、尖鼻咀及白泥發展計劃的意見

香港規劃師學會支持發展北部都會區，使其成為創新科技發展的引擎，同時積極保護珍貴的濕地和自然環境，確保充足的優質住房供應。我們強調在經濟發展和保護之間取得平衡，在滿足當前需求的同時確保可持續的未來，在全球範圍內保持資本、資源和資訊自由流動的開放性，同時尊重地區特色。

 

要成功推行項目，規劃北部都會區內的不同區域時需要有策略的思維來選定它們正確的定位，也需要充分的公眾參與以了解持份者的需求和關注，以及政府機構、私營部門、教育機構、交通和公用事業服務提供者以及當地社區之間的詳細協調。基於上述原則，我們對新發表的流浮山、尖鼻咀及白泥發展建議（流浮山發展計劃）提出以下評論：

 

1.                  全面的規劃及經濟策略

  • 政府需要制定全面的規劃和經濟策略，充分考慮流浮山的區域優勢、缺點、機會和限制。在執行計劃之前，需要回應並充分解決以下問題：

  • (1)流浮山應扮演什麼角色，從而為香港帶來最佳的價值，同時補充香港在一國兩制下南沙和前海的現有設施；

  • (2)這個角色是否以及在多大程度上會取決於連接香港及深圳傳統核心商業區及兩地現有和規劃中的主要交通基礎設施；及

  • (3)若交椅洲人工島工程中擬建的港島西至洪水橋鐵路線大幅延誤，將會有何影響？

  • 不同的創新及科技中心應有明確的定位，並應在北部都會區的不同地點預留或擬建大量土地。還需要在中短期內制定切實可行的實施策略，以防止某些生態敏感地區或週邊地區的遇到受規劃影響而蒙受的損害、發展壓力或土地投機行為，以及發生土地和基礎設施規劃和開發上的過度/多餘的投資。

  • 發展計劃內提出「數位科技中心」，以促進傳統經濟和新經濟在金融科技、智慧生活和數位娛樂等領域的整合。然而，在流浮山中選擇樞紐位置應該小心進行並要有足夠證明支持其合理性。政府應考慮先整合新田科技城的資源，形成一個相對大的羣組，而不是鬆散地分散在幾個地區，從而引起群聚效應是成功的關鍵。

  • 流浮山是洪水橋/廈村新發展區的建議擴展區。然而，發展計劃內沒有提供有關整個新發展區修訂後的總人口、住宅總數和總就業人數的資料。也沒有關於規劃人口概況與洪水橋/廈村新發展區和流浮山的經濟用地、預計住户和就業分配、人口通勤模式以及短、中和長期交通及其他基礎設施的支持是否充足以相配合的資料。上述都對整個新發展區的成敗具有重要影響，因此應該包括在發展計劃內。

  • 發展計劃內提出沿著生態敏感的后海灣並毗鄰米埔內后海灣拉姆薩爾濕地，建議建造「生態旅遊目的地」和「海岸保護公園」。零售、餐飲、娛樂和表演場地的概念與尖鼻咀及白泥地區生態敏感和寧靜的特色不相容，任何對自然棲息地和特色的位移也是不合理的。

 

2.                 配合創科發展策略

  • 雖然《香港創新及科技發展藍圖》於2022年頒布，但並未提及土地利用和基礎建設規劃如何配合建議策略（例如加強創科生態系統、推動「新型工業化」、擴大創科人才規模、匯聚創造強勁成長動力），促進中短期目標的實現。創新、科技及工業局應發揮關鍵推動作用，根據不同因素的成熟程度，在空間、技術、基礎設施要求上提供實際的投入，並在適當的時間框架內吸引合適的創科公司和人才落腳北部地區。

  • 為各種創科中心進行廣泛的土地儲備和土地平整，例如落馬洲河套地區、新田科技城、新界北、馬料水填海區、洪水橋和流浮山應在整體政策驅動和市場反應的背景下進行檢討和論證。

  • 然而令人驚訝的是，在最近針對該發展計劃舉行的公眾諮詢中，沒有創新科技及工業局的代表出席，為正在諮詢的計劃進行澄清/解釋。

 

3.                 以基礎建設主導的發展

  • 流浮山位於香港偏遠地區，是支援商業和專業服務的數位中心，但仍需要與主要市區建立便利的連接，從而建立有效的創科生態系統。有數碼港和科學園區的前車可鑑，策略性鐵路和高速公路連接的時間安排的不確定性會影響市場和就業機會的吸引力。

  • 值得注意的是，洪水橋/廈村新發展區擬議的智慧和綠色公共交通系統保留在最新的流浮山發展計劃中，並沿著后海灣沿海地區建立新的綠色交通走廊，其實際模式選擇、初步技術可行性、概述經濟可行性和實際實施時間對於擬議土地利用模式的成功機會至關重要，包括對高密度住宅社區以及創科和旅遊設施的必要支持。對於研究區內主要基礎設施網路的時間安排和相互依賴性沒有明確的指示。我們不應忘記啟德郵輪碼頭和九龍東單軌鐵路未能通車的不幸教訓。這些重要的研究，即使一開始是粗略的，仍然需要真正的鐵路和運輸營運專家的意見。

 4.                 尊重長遠規劃意向

  • 雖然預計發展計劃會進行修改以適應市場變化，並且各項细節會有一定的靈活性，但亦要避免在沒有充分正當理由的情況下進行劇烈的戰略和方向轉變，以保持發展計劃的整體一致性以及真長遠目標和利益。我們應避免重蹈過往的覆轍，例如把為香港科技園公司擴建預留的用地改作白石角住宅用途，或將數碼港的創科用地改變成豪華的貝沙灣住宅用途。

5.                 創造一個合適居民而又有充滿活力的社區

  • 計劃書內沒有提及可使洪水橋/廈村新發展區（包括流浮山）發展成為一個平衡、包容和宜居的社區的房屋組合、人口概況以及其他規劃建議的資料。流浮山發展計劃內應體現出以人為本的規劃。

  • 創造一個充滿活力、全天候的社區，提供相輔相乘的景點和日夜間/週末活動，以滿足將會在區内生活及工作創科人員的意願，這一點至為重要。目前的流浮山發展規劃內並未提及有關的規劃。我們期望在建議發展大綱圖（RODP）發布之前獲得更多在土地利用和城市設計方面的資訊。作為洪水橋/廈村新發展區的擴展部份，仔細研究生活-工作-娛樂平衡的最適當組合是非常重要的。這樣做可以避免天水圍「悲情城市」的重演。

 

6.                 城市設計與可持續性

  • 發展計劃應展示一個已包括了流浮山和洪水橋/廈村新發展區的整體新發展區的規劃和城市設計。

  • 應實現自然-鄉郊-城市一體化，而不僅僅是城鄉一體化。流浮山發展計劃中應有不同層次的開發強度，並且規劃相應的相容發展用途。發展同時亦不應損害新發展區擴展區內的計劃保留的鄉村和自然特徵。

  • 效果圖並未說明地盤內可能在未來10-15年內保留的任何工業、露天倉庫、港口後勤和物流運輸用途。它們將成為與新的擬議用途，例如地積比率為6.5的高密度住宅用地緊密接觸面。在流浮山站及/或環保運輸系統啟用之前，由於工業交通仍然繁忙，可能會出現嚴重的介面問題。這會對創科設施以及旅遊相關設施的吸引力產生不良影響。

  • 天影路目前將天水圍與流浮山發展計劃區分隔開，因此需要設計解決方案。

  • 發展計劃亦應考慮加入零碳目標。

 7.                  與其他大型規劃項目的協調

  • 推行流浮山發展計劃的時間表、可容納人口、經濟用地需求及計劃的分段發展策略，應與交椅洲人工島和馬料水填海等其他重大項目一起綜合考慮。政府應提出整體的創科發展策略，以區別這些項目各自不同的功能。第一批人口遷入的時間必須與交通和基礎設施的完工日期配合。

 8.                   公眾參與程序

  • 當載有更詳細資料的建議發展大綱圖預備好時，應在法定規劃過程進行前，展開正式且全面的公眾參與。

 

本會敦促政府仔細考慮上述意見，實現北部都會區的願景及流浮山發展的具體計劃。

 

  

香港規劃師學會
公共事務委員會
2024年5月5日

HKIP