THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

DEPARTMENT OF LAW
LAND LAW III (CONVEYANCING) (2023-2024)
LECTURE NO 5
PLANNING CONTROL OF LAND

1. History of planning control1

(a) “2nd Facet” of the “Holy Trinity” in land administration

 Government lease: planning by contract

 Planning control: law not contract, Town Planning

Ordinance, issue of ‘existing use’
 Building control: note some provisions in the Building
Ordinance say that OZP (Outline Zoning Plan, plan published by
the Town Planning Board under TPO) should be respected and
followed.

(b) Formerly being ‘consultative’ only for government guidance in

‘town’ planning (i.e. HK Island and Kowloon)

(c) Gradually Extended to NT Towns and rural NT under DPA

(Development Permission Area) regime.

2. Statutory regime in HK and relevant bodies

If you want to do judicial review in the future, need to consider who is the proper
plaintiff/defendant (who made the decision)

(a) Town Planning Ordinance (Cap.131) (“TPO”)

i. Enacted in 1939 and many subsequent amendments
ii. Regulates land use through ‘statutory plans’ (i.e. OZPs),
planning intention (Note: change in 2004 public
(stakeholder’s opinions became respected)
iii. Governs urban areas until 1991

1
For reference, see: 《城傳立新──香港城市規劃發展史 1841－2015》(Joint Publishing)
1
 iv. Constitution of the Town Planning Board: Plan-Making,
Amendments, Permission

(b) Town Planning Board (“TPB”): not the government,

independent
i. Constitution: Official and non-official members2
ii. Committees: Metro Planning Committee, Rural and New
Town Planning Committee
iii. Meetings and Representation: Fridays, Open to Public (since
2004)
iv. Deliberation: Closed to public
v. Practice and Procedure3

vi. Powers: Plan Making (s.4-12), Amendment of Plans

(s.12A), Grant Planning Permission (s.16), Power to
recommend resumption for Comprehensive Development
Areas (s.4(2))

(c) Town Planning Appeal Board (“TPAB”):

Planning Permission Appeals under s.17A of TPO
Review the decision made by TPB, but if TPB insists, can JR
TPAB’s decision.

(d) CE/Chief Executive in Council (“CEinC”):

Appointment of members of TPB, Approval of draft plans

(e) Planning Department (“PlanD”)/Director of Planning:

Government’s role in plan making process
Making Interim Development Permission Area Plans in early
1990s
Granting of development permissions under DPA (as delegated
by the TPB)
Enforcement of planning controls (since 2004) (i.e. unauthorized
developments under s.22/23 of TPO (below))

(f) Buildings Department (“BD”):

Approval of plans upon compliance of OZP
2
https://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/en/about_us/member.html
3
https://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/en/about_us/procedure.html
2
(g) High Court of HKSAR (Constitutional and Administrative
Law List- HCAL):
Judicial Reviews on plan-making, re-zoning, planning
permission after TPAB

(h) Town planners, Planning consultants

See: Hong Kong Institute of Planners http://hkip.org.hk

3
3. Hierarchy of Plans: Statutory and Non Statutory Plans

(a) “Non-statutory plans” prepared by the “Planning Department”

(not examinable)

i. Territorial Development Strategy: “Hong Kong 2030

Study” (Report 2007)4. Current project: “Hong Kong
2030+”5

ii. Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines6

iii. Sub-regional plans

iv. Outline development plans, Layout Plans

v. None of them are legally-binding, but forms part of the

Government’s policy and relevant consideration by Town
Planning Board

(b) “Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong Hong Kong-

Macao Greater Bay Area” 《粵港澳大灣區發展規劃綱要》7

4. “Statutory Plans”: OZP, DPA, URAP

(a) “Map-based” plans at district level (c.f. ‘lot-based’ Government

leases). Three types:-

i. Outline Zoning Plans (分區計劃大綱圖) (“OZP”)

ii. Development Permission Area Plans ( 發 展 審 批 地 區 圖 )

(“DPA”) (or Interim Development Permission Area Plans
(“IDPA”))

4
https://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/p_study/comp_s/hk2030/eng/finalreport/
5
https://www.hk2030plus.hk/about_a.htm
6
https://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/tech_doc/hkpsg/index.html
7
https://www.bayarea.gov.hk/en/outline/plan.html
4
 iii. Urban Renewal Authority Development Scheme Plans
(“URAP”)

(b) “Statutory Effect” of approved plans:

*Section 13: (‘Standards for guidance’ for ‘all public officers

and bodies’)
Approved plans and approved parts of partly approved plans must be used by
all public officers and bodies as standards for guidance in the exercise of any
powers vested in them.
*Section 21 (DPA)
*Section 20/23 (DPA replaced by OZP)

(c) “Legislative” effect of plans: Technically OZPs, being ‘enacted’

by the TPB and enforced through s.16(1)(d) of BO only has
‘legal effect’ but cannot be regarded as “subsidiary legislation”
(Kwan Kong v. TPB [1995] 3 HKC 254 at [107] per Wuang J,
c.f. Singway v. AG [1974] HKLR 275 Auburntown v. TPB
[1994] 2 HKLR 287 at [63]-[77] per Rhind J)

5. Plan-making process: Making/Amendment of OZPs by TPB

(a) Process: https://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/en/plan_making/participate.html

(Details not examinable)

(b) Section 3-12 of TPO. OZP under s.3(1)(a)

(c) Gazette of draft plan (before approved)

(d) Two months public consultation for written statements (s.6(1))

(e) Representation hearings, Further Representation hearing (for

amendment made by TPB), Comments

(f) Determination and submission of draft plan to CE in C

(g) Section 9: CE in C may approve draft plan/refuse/refer to Board.

Once approved, draft OZP become “approved plan” and has
5
 ‘legal effect’ upon printing/exhibition as noticed in Gazette(i.e.
OZP)

(h) Notable recent judicial reviews against TPB’s decision for draft
plans (or amendments referred by CE in C)

(Note: Substantive contents of authorities are NOT examinable

since this is NOT an admin law course)

i. Smart Gain Investment Ltd v. TPB and CE in C HCAL

12/2006, HCAL 12/2007 (6.11.2008) (Held- Insufficient
inquiry by TPB)8

ii. Capital Rich Development ltd v. TPB [2007] 2 HKLRD

155 (Held by CA: Board took into account irrelevant
consideration)9

iii. Hysan Development v. TPB (CA) CACV 232/2012

(13.11.2014) (Held: TPB had power to impose podium
height restrictions, no build areas, set-back areas under draft
OZPs, discharge of ‘Tameside duty’ in making proper
inquiries)10, Oriental Generation Ltd v. TPB (CA) CACV
129/2012 (13.11.2014), (CFA) (2016) 19 HKCFAR 372 (on
proportionality only)11

iv. The Real Estate Developers Association of Hong Kong v.

TPB [2015] 2 HKC 32712 (Held: TPB’s hearing has no
systemic unfairness, but held that there were “specific
procedural unfairness for failure to make sufficient inquiries)

v. Chan Ka Lam v. CE in C and TPB HCAL 28/2015

(24.11.2017) (Au J) (Held: TPB had failed to properly
inquire into matters raised in representations for needs of
indigenous villagers, committed factual errors in inaccurate
mapping and information)
8
https://www.hklii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2007/1133.html
9
https://www.hklii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkca/2007/543.html?
10
https://www.hklii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkca/2014/549.html?
11
https://www.hklii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfa/2016/66.html
12
https://www.hklii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2015/142.html
6
 vi. Tung Chun Company Ltd v. TPB [2018] 3 HKLRD 466
13
(Held: TPB made an error of law by erroneously stating
that “you can proceed with development notwithstanding the
Building Height Restriction”, TPB took account irrelevant
consideration of possibility of minor relaxation. Decision to
amend plans quashed and remitted back)

vii. C.f. TPB’s draft plans are should NOT be judicially

reviewable as all draft plans will become academic after
approval by CE in C- the review should be made against the
CE instead of TPB: Kwan Kong v. TPB [1996] 2 HKLRD
36314, Yau Ka Po v. TPB HCAL 56/2015 (14.6.2016)15,
Yau Ka Po v. CE in C HCAL 221/2015 (29.1.2016)16

viii. Designing Hong Kong Ltd v. TPB (2018) 21 HKCFAR

23717
(JR by NGO against the refusal to amended OZP for zoning
of “military dock” in Central Harbour Waterfront in favor of
the PLA Garrison. CFA refused ‘protective costs order’ to be
awarded in favor of applicant on questions of general public
importance. Eventually the JR was aborted)

ix. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Foundation v. TPB [2020] 2

HKLRD 89518

(HKSKH claiming for interim relief against draft plan

amendment of site of former “Central Hospital” to be
harmonious with surrounding areas and historical buildings
nearby (i.e. the Government Hill), alleging inter alia that the
TPB did not have heritage preservation functions)

(i) Human right/ Constitutional challenges against ‘Plan-making’

which contravenes Art. 6 and Art. 105 of Basic Law:-

13
https://www.hklii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2018/1447.html?
14
https://www.hklii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkca/1996/563.html
15
https://www.hklii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2016/992.html
16
https://www.hklii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2016/136.html
17
https://www.hklii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfa/2018/16.html
18
https://www.hklii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2020/597.html
7
 i. Old cases: Auburntown v. TPB [1994] 2 HKLR 272 (Held:
Did not offend Art. 10 of BORO)19, Real Estate Developers
Association of Hong Kong v. TPB (No.1) (1996) 6 HKPLR
179, Kwan Kong Co v. TPB [1996] 2 HKLR 363

ii. Fine Tower Associates v. TPB (CA) [2008] 1 HKLRD

55320 (might have been overruled by Hysan below)

iii. Hysan Development Co Ltd v. TPB (CFA) (2016) 19

HKCFAR 372 (Held by Ribeiro PJ: Art. 6/105 were
engaged. Leave open to challenge on Art. 6 and 105, “4-step
inquiry” on proportionality (legitimate aim, rational
connection, no more than necessary, must not be manifestly
without reasonable foundation. But if decisions which are
not flawed on traditional JR grounds, restrictions are highly
unlikely to be “manifestly without reasonable foundation”)

6. Contents of OZP: Plan (Map), Notes, Schedule of Uses,

Explanatory Statement

(a) Available at Statutory Planning Portal at

https://www2.ozp.tpb.gov.hk/gos/

(b) Illustration: See “Mid-Levels OZP (Map)” and “Mid-Levels

OZP S/H11/15 (Notes)” (Urban)

(c) **Zonings (s.4/s.4A): Residential (A-E) (subclasses),

Commercial (“C”), Commercial/Residential (“C/R”), Industrial
(“I”), Village Type Development (“V”), Agriculture (AGR),
Government Institution OR Community (“G/IC”), Other Uses
(“OU”), Green Belt (“GB”), Open Space (“O”) , Open Storage
(“OS”), Special Sites of Scientific Interest (SSSI), Conservation
Area (“CA”), Recreation (“REC”), Country Parks (“CP”),
Undetermined (“U”), Comprehensive Development Area
(“CDA”)

19
https://www.hklii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/1994/323.html
20
https://www.hklii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkca/2007/332.html
8
(d) *Notes (Part of Plan)

(e) *Schedule of Use: Column 1 (Always Permitted), Column 2

(Permission required with may require conditions)

(f) *Explanatory Statement (NOT part of Plan but is

explanatory)

9
7. Application for amendment of OZPs under section 12A TPO (i.e.
Re-Zoning Applications)

(a) Can be applied by “any person”, but need to obtain written

consent in writing of the ‘current land owner(s)’ (registered
owners in Lands Registry) (or take reasonable steps to obtain
such consent) (s.12A(3))

(b) Public inspection, notice, comments by other person,

consideration at meeting (applicant entitled to be heard)

(c) After acceptance, request CE in C for amendment of OZP

(d) Procedure and guidance note:

https://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/en/forms/Guidance_Notes/S12A_GN_E
NG_2019.pdf
(NOT examinable- but note that it is an expensive process involving
assessments on environment (e.g. air ventilation), drainage, traffic,
infrastructure, landscape, topography etc.)

(e) Example: Y-TKO-5C (Gist, Paper and Plans)

(Rezoning application by Mr. Johnny Tang at Hang Hau Road to,

inter alia, construct 8 houses) 21

(f) Judicial Reviews (NOT examinable)

Jonnex International v. TPB [2018] 1 HKLRD 577 (Held: TPB

had ruled on ‘undesirable precedent’ on another site, not giving
sufficient chance to applicant to address on a relevant matter and
decision under s.12A was Wednesbury unreasonable. Re-zoning
application remitted to TPB.)

IO of No. 6 & 10 Mount Davis Road v. TPB HCAL 27/2012

(19.3.2020)22 (Held: JR allowed. TPB had a wholesale and
verbatim adoption (i.e. ‘copying’) of reasons prepared by
planning department and failed to exercise independent judgment
21
鄧兆尊坑口道地皮申建8幢洋房 規劃署不反對 https://bit.ly/30TBtTN
22
https://www.hklii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2020/501.html?
10
 as reflected by the deliberation and reasoning given in response
to comments/representations raised by the “REDA” (who did not
own or have any interest in any of the sites against the imposition
of building height restrictions)

8. Application for “Planning Permission” under existing OZP

(a) “Permission required”: Column 2 of Schedule of OZP

(b) Section 16 of TPO: Planning permission applications

(c) Guidance Note by TPB23

(d) Similar to s.12A applications: Need consent/reasonable steps for

consent of owners 不要搞混！

(e) TPB may impose conditions

(f) Example: A/YL-KTN/672 (Gist, Planning Brief and Plans)

Permission to operate an “Animal Boarding Establishment

(Cattery)” in ‘Agriculture’ (AGR) zone

(g) Section 17: Power to apply for review by TPB (s.17(1))

(h) Section 17B: Appeals to Town Planning (Appeal) Board

(i) Further Judicial Reviews: (details not examinable)

i. Henderson Real Estate Agency v. Lo Chai Wan (suing on

behalf of TPB) (1996) 7 HKPLR 1 PC (Held (majority): No
misunderstanding of TPAB about the plans and planning
intention under the Notes for preservation of ponds in Mai
Po, decision of TPAB restored and appeal upheld)

ii. International Trader v. Town Planning Appeal Board

[2009] 3 HKLRD 339 (TPB/TPAB’s decision quashed by

23
https://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/en/forms/Guidance_Notes/S16_GN_ENG_2019.pdf
11
 CFI on grounds that the TPB took into irrelevant
considerations falling outside the parameters of the OZP.
Contrary to plan-making/amendment, the TPB cannot and
does not have power to consider holistic planning
considerations beyond the planning intention of the
approved OZP)24

iii. TPB v. TPAB and Nam Sang Wai Development

Company Ltd (2017) 20 HKCFAR 196 (Amendments
before 2004 about TPB’s power to ‘review’ its decision
under s.17)

iv. Hong Kong Resort v. TPB HCAL 645/2017 (7.8.2020)25

(JR by applicant in s.16 application to have failed to take
into account “relevant planning considerations” including
“Unused GFA Factor” and was irrational in the reasoning for
‘undesirable precedent’)

v. Tam Hoi Pong v. TPB exp Mutual Luck Investment Ltd

HCAL 20/2014 (4.9.2020)26
(JR by a conservationist contending that the TPB has
contravened its own policies/planning intention (i.e. public-
private partnership) under the OZP to protect wetland and
fish ponds in Deep Bay area by granting planning
permission)

24
Critque: 政府如何塞錢給地產商──從太古地產西摩道地皮說起
https://www.inmediahk.net/node/272170
25
https://www.hklii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2020/1956.html
26
https://www.hklii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2020/2265.html
12
9. “Enforcement” of OZP simpliciter (e.g. Mid-Levels OZP)

(a) Section 13 TPO: Used by public officers and bodies as

standards for guidance

(b) Meaning of “standards for guidance”: International Trader

v. TPAB [2009] 4 HKC 411 “Guidance” for discharge of their
duties at [31]-[33] per Hartmann J

(c) Effectively through “building and lease controls” by the

Buildings Department/Lands Department

(d) Licensing: Food Environmental Hygiene Department (e.g. Public

Entertainment Licence, Restaurants) /Liquor Licensing Board/
Transport Department

(e) Private Columbaria Licensing Board and Lists of operators (A/B)

published by Development Bureau27

27
https://www.devb.gov.hk/en/issues_in_focus/private_columbaria/part_a_and_b/
13
10. Control and Enforcement against “Unauthorized Development”
in the New Territories:
Interim Development Permission Area Plans (IDPA)
Development Permission Area Plans (DPA)

(a) Introduced in 1991 when TPO was extended to rural areas to

‘freeze’ land use and undesirable developments as a result of
AG v. Melhado (1983) (See: Government Leases II)

(b) Step 1: Section 26(4): Director of Planning to make IDPAs,

development shall not be undertaken or continued otherwise in
conformity with such plans or with permission of director of
Planning

(c) Step 2: Section 3(1)(b) + Section 20: TPB to make draft DPAs

i. Note that TPB cannot make a draft DPA if area was already
covered under OZP (s.20(2))

ii. A “stop-gap measure”: Effective for 3 years+ 1 year

extension for TPB to prepare and approve OZP to replace
DPAs

iii. Illustration: Legco Brief for Ngau Tam Mei DPA

prepared by Planning Department (Annex A (Plan +
Notes) + B (Explanatory Statement)) (1994)

(d) Step 3: Section 20(3): OZP to replace DPAs under draft plans
to continue with DPA restrictions

i. Illustration: Ngau Tam Mei OZP (Map + Notes)

Note: for ‘unauthorised development’, look at 20, 22, 23

20(7)(8): criminal offence
22: get info to let you prosecute properly
23: stop notice
(e) Offence under s.20(7)+(8) for undertaking/continuing

14
 “development”

(f) Section 23: quicker than alleging criminal offence under s.20

i. Alternative way to enforce against “unauthorized

development” under IDPA/DPA/OZP incorporating DPA by
practically ‘shifting’ the burden to owner (introduced in
2004) 如果查阅history没有IDPA/DPA/OZP就不可以主张

ii. Issuance of “Notice” requiring:-

1. “Stop Notices”: Discontinuation (s.23(1));

2. Steps to be taken to prevent ‘relevant matters’ (s.23(2)

(d)/(e));

3. Reinstatement Notice: Reinstate to the condition

immediately before DPA became effective or to such
other condition more favorable to the person served as
the Authority considers satisfactory (s.23(3))

iii. Offence provisions under s.23(6) for failure to comply with

notice

iv. Powers by Director of Planning (s.23(7), (7A), (8A))

v. Statutory Defences:

1. “Took reasonable steps to comply” (s.23(9)(a))

2. “Not a development” (s.23(9)(aa))

3. “Existing use” (s.23(9)(b))

4. Permitted/permission had been granted (s.23(9)(c)(d))

(g) Definition of “unauthorized development”/ “development”:

15
 s.1A:-28

“Development”:

“means carrying out building, engineering, mining or other

operations in, on, over or under land, or making a material
change in the use of land or buildings;”

“material change in use of land or buildings”:

“Material change in the use of land or buildings includes

depositing matter on land, notwithstanding that all or part of the
land is already used for depositing matter, if the area, height or
amount of the deposit is increased”

See also: PlanD’s Q&A (on agricultural land) at

https://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/cep/CUD/index.html

Examples of proven convictions on s.23:

 R v. Power Straight [1995] 3 HKC 40229 (“Existing use”:
Relevant date is the ‘use’ of the land on the day immediately
before publication of IDPA Plan (usually in 1991))
 R v. Way Luck Industrial Ltd [1995] 2 HKC 29030
(Unauthorized development is a question of degree)
 HKSAR v. Vily Field Investment HCMA 1011/2006
(Intensification of existing use can also result in material
change of use, burden on the proof on the landowner,
‘reverse onus’ was constitutional)31

BUT see: Secretary for Justice v. Cheung Tat Co Ltd [1997] 4

HKC 21032 (Photographs were static cannot be sufficient to
prove “storage” and simple loading/unloading activities cannot
suffice to constitute unauthorized development)

28
https://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/cep/what_enforce/index.html
29
http://www.hklii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/1995/464.html
30
http://www.hklii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/1995/297.html
31
http://www.hklii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2007/814.html
32
http://www.hklii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/1997/792.html
16
11. Current Problems in NT: Illegal Dumping Activities, Brownfield
Operations, calls for reform? (NOT examinable)

(a) Expansion of “Brownfield” operation in the NT and studies

conducted by Liber Research Community: https://bit.ly/2QL0hdx

See: Brownfields in Time: Tracing the course of Brownfield

expansion in the New Territories
《隔世追棕 – 新界棕土擴張軌跡與現況》
(Report published by Liber Research Community: 19.12.2018)33

(b) Samples of news coverage:

i. https://bit.ly/2ENnq7j (HK01 Commentary: Government

Departments hands tied)

ii. https://bit.ly/2UkEdUT (Low rate of prosecution, slow

enforcement, ‘reinstatement’ notices satisfied by PlanD)

iii. https://bit.ly/2C5o5iS (Dumping Activities in Pui O, Sai

Kung, Tung Chung, Lau Fao Shan, even near SSSIs)

iv. https://bit.ly/2tRHXS8 (Eradication of trees)

v. https://bit.ly/2TBbv52 (Contractors prosecuted under EIAO

etc.)

(c) Late inclusion of DPAs, many areas in NT are still NOT

governed by any OZP/IDPA/DPA (Legal Enclaves/Lacunae)

i. “Legal enclaves” near SSSI in Lung Ku Tan:

https://bit.ly/2SJwEVO)

ii. The “hole” (military base) in Ngau Tam Mei (above):

https://radicalhk.com/2016/07/18/suntin/

33
Downloadable at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UdM-BuFxHGikkzlDJHZPglG86MvW6_cC/view
17
(d) Areas covered by OZP simpliciter without going through DPAs:
DPA restrictions not applicable and hence no offence of
“unauthorized development”:-

(Credit to Mingpao/Liber Research Community)

i. http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1041497 ,
https://bit.ly/31BWC2u (Articles by Ms. Camille Lam of
Liber Research Community)

ii. https://bit.ly/2SJtp0P (South Lantau/Tung Chung: Area

under OZP but NOT DPA)

iii. https://bit.ly/2IS4atm (Dumping activities near HK

Education University)

iv. https://bit.ly/2TfNAbL (‘Admission’ by PlanD about lacuna

under TPO)

(e) To include DPA into exiting OZP as legal reform?

Government’s response:-
https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201005/05/
18
 P201005050170.htm

(f) Rezoning/Planning Permission regularizing/ legalizing

Brownfields: Tolerance and approval by Government/TPB

(g) Statutory Loopholes: “Development” and its definition

(h) Defence of “existing use”, lack of ‘existing user’ database when

DPA were gazetted, over-reliance on aerial photographs

(i) Prosecution difficulties: Beyond reasonable doubt standard

(j) Sufficiency of criminal sanction against owners/users?

(k) “Reinstatement” Notice: Legalizing change of use to a different

form34?

(l) Incentive for “scotched-earth” tactics: Destroy First, Develop

Later35

(m) Difficulties in inspection, detection and enforcement

(n) Lack of enforcement power by PlanD till 1991/2004, PlanD’s

shortage of resources and manpower (or attitude?)

(o) Others: Difficulties and loopholes under Waste Disposal

Ordinance (beyond scope of this course) etc.

34
https://bit.ly/2TjKxPZ
35
https://bit.ly/2H07pxe
19
12. Reform/streamlining of TP regime (or the entire land
administration) (NOT examinable)

(a) “Streamlining Development Control” between LandsD, PlanD

and BD

i. “Steering Group” formed in 2018

https://www.devb.gov.hk/en/home/my_blog/index_id_421.ht
ml

ii. https://www.devb.gov.hk/en/issues_in_focus/index.html
(1st, 2nd and 3rd Batch)

(b) “籲精簡規劃程序至四五年”
(WenweiPo)
https://www.wenweipo.com/a/202108/10/AP61119355e4b08d34
07d34189.html

(c) Our Hong Kong Foundation: Developing the New Territories and
cutting red tapes to expedite land and housing supply

https://ourhkfoundation.org.hk/sites/default/files/media/
pdf/PPI_Housing_media_briefing_20210903.pdf

(d) Liber Research Community’s critical review: https://liber-

research.com/steamlining_planning/

Alwin Chan
September 2023
(adapted from Adrian But’s outline)

20