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.
The owners and residents of DB made many highly detailed and well-documented comments on the original HKR submission. Most of these important comments have been ignored.
All substantive public comments should have received the same attention that was given to the comments from government departments. If Masterplan did not have sufficient time to answer the comments, it only indicates that the original submission was ill-prepared and unready for review under the Town Planning Ordinance.
Unless and until HKR and its consultant are able to provide detailed responses to the public comments for further review and comment, the applications for Area 6f and 10b should be withdrawn.
Here is just a sampling of the important comments that were submitted by owners and residents of DB:
| Area 6f #15 | Queries the rationale provided for the development |
| Area 6f #34 | Inadequate infrastructure to support increase in population |
| Area 6f #204 | Safety and sustainability issues |
| Area 6f #352 | Access issues. Concern over supply of potable water in drought conditions |
| Area 6f #493 | Unresolved issues of encroachment on government land elsewhere on the lot |
| Area 6f #1104 | Legal opinion on the status of the Passageway at Area 6f |
| Area 6f #1109 | Detailed review of the TIA and the Passageway |
| Area 6f #1458 | Comprehensive review of issues affecting Area 6f from a senior engineer |
| Area 6f #1512 | Significant submission by the Parkvale VOC |
| Area 6f No Number (after #1892) | Comprehensive review of Area 6f submission, including detailed analysis of drought impact and road access |
| Area 10b #2064 | Comprehensive review of the Area 10b submission by a senior engineer |
| Area 10b #2106 | Need for proper accounting of the undivided shares prior to approval of the proposals |
| Area 10b #2123 | Need for strict control of zones in the Notes to the OZP, in accordance with the existing OZP. Restriction on HKR's right to redevelop the Common Area under the DMC. |
| Area 10b #1245 | Ecological and archaeological concerns regarding reclamation. Status of moorings |
| Multiple | Failure to consult with the co-owners of the lot |
| Multiple | Complete absence of information on the sewage treatment plant between Area 10b and La Costa |
| Multiple | The Outline Zoning Plan and the Master Plan are not aligned |
| Multiple | HKR is not the sole land owner, as the lot is held under a DMC. |
| Multiple | The population cap of 25,000 should be preserved. |
| Multiple | HKR should release the existing water, sewage and LPG agreements |
| Multiple | DBSML, not HKR, is the sole party authorised under the DMC to conclude agreements with the government and other suppliers of services to the lot |
| Multiple | The TIA has ignored the road safety issues arising from the interaction of increasing traffic and golf carts |
| Multiple | Vehicle parking has not been addressed |
| Multiple | The bus depot should be zoned G/IC. |
Please feel free to copy some or all of the above when replying to the TPB. Don’t wait until your submission is “complete”. You may make multiple submissions at any time on different topics, up to the 15 July deadline.