posp67 0

THE EVOLUTION OF YUEN LONG TOWN LOT 506: 

THE EVOLUTION OF YUEN LONG TOWN LOT 506 Planning Issues Location – Area 16 (about 4.28 ha) on Yuen Long OZP S/YL/I 2. 1993 Zoning – Industrial, GI/C & Road

1993 Layout Plan – indicates Industrial, Godown, Lorry and Car Park, Cooked Food Stall.: 

1993 Layout Plan – indicates Industrial, Godown, Lorry and Car Park, Cooked Food Stall.

4. Rezoning Request – to CDA with the Planning Intention to encourage Comprehensive Development for Residential Use.: 

4. Rezoning Request – to CDA with the Planning Intention to encourage Comprehensive Development for Residential Use.

Principal Justifications – (1) To resolve the potential industrial, residential interface problem between Tung Tau industrial area and the adjacent village zone of Hung Tin; residential buildings are less intrusive than industrial buildings, similarly the level and type of traffic generated with consequential noise and air pollution is much less for residential use;(2) Declining Demand for industrial space;(3) To increase the supply or flats in Yuen Long Town;(4) The existing temporary use of the site as container lorry parking, rubbish dumping also undesirable.: 

Principal Justifications – (1) To resolve the potential industrial, residential interface problem between Tung Tau industrial area and the adjacent village zone of Hung Tin; residential buildings are less intrusive than industrial buildings, similarly the level and type of traffic generated with consequential noise and air pollution is much less for residential use; (2) Declining Demand for industrial space; (3) To increase the supply or flats in Yuen Long Town; (4) The existing temporary use of the site as container lorry parking, rubbish dumping also undesirable. Planning parameters agreed in October 1994:- (1) Medium density – 3 plot ratio; (2) Maximum site coverage – 30%; (3) Maximum building height – 12 storeys

Land Ownership & Site Assembly Issues: 

Land Ownership & Site Assembly Issues Site Acquisition started in 1988, through 1994 and finishing 1997/8. 2. Total costs include fees, commission, stamp duty, compensation, vacant possession & removal costs equivalent to over $200 p.s.f. av. On the residential g.f.a. – 995 820 sq.ft.

Slide6: 

The surrender plan for the subsequent land exchange gives a clear picture of the fragmentation & diversity of the original land ownership pattern, as follows : 3 agricultural lots measured at 1.48 acres or 64469 sq.ft. 11 Agricultural lots measured at 18 002.3m² or 193 777 sq. ft. 1 Agricultural lots measured at 13 797.2 sq. ft - 13 797 sq.ft. 3 building lots measured at 0.13 acres or 5663 sq.ft. 2 building lots measured at 2205 sq. ft. – 2205 sq. ft. Total 279 922 sq. ft. or 26004 sq. m. The re-grant area is 30838 sq. m. with about 4834 sq. m of Government Land included equivalent to about 15% of the area. Only alternative for implementation would be resumption by Government and then land sale.

Back to Planning1. In November 1995 a fresh OZP was gazetted as plan No. S/YL/2.2. Because of a clash between our land ownership boundary and the new zoning for CDA we raised an objection requesting a minor adjustment to enable our project to proceed.3. Successful acquisition of the final lot to the north meant we could withdraw the objection and submit a proper S.16 application in July 1996.: 

Back to Planning 1. In November 1995 a fresh OZP was gazetted as plan No. S/YL/2. 2. Because of a clash between our land ownership boundary and the new zoning for CDA we raised an objection requesting a minor adjustment to enable our project to proceed. 3. Successful acquisition of the final lot to the north meant we could withdraw the objection and submit a proper S.16 application in July 1996.

Slide8: 

4. Although the P.R. 3 never varied we sought approval to variable building heights of 4-23 stories with consequential lower site coverage – 21% which were approved by T.P.B. 5. In November 1997 another S.16 was submitted to reduce the number of building blocks from 13 to 8, adjust the building heights to 17 to 22 stories and reduce the site coverage to 16% -this was approved. 6. A further S.16 was submitted in March 1998 to vary the building heights to 19-23 stories, which was approved.

  7. Another S.16 was submitted in July 1998 going back to 9 blocks with heights ranging between 22-26 stories and 19% site coverage, also approved.8. December 1998 saw another S.16 asking for storey heights of 24-28 and 15% site coverage which was approved.: 

7. Another S.16 was submitted in July 1998 going back to 9 blocks with heights ranging between 22-26 stories and 19% site coverage, also approved. 8. December 1998 saw another S.16 asking for storey heights of 24-28 and 15% site coverage which was approved. 9. Finally in September 1999 a final S.16 was submitted with a dramatic reduction in building height related to the PLA use of Shek Kong airfield maximum height limit reduced from 91.3mPD to 61.5m PD, no number of tower increased to 15 with heights of 16/17 stories and 21% site coverage.

10. Why all these changes ? Consider this table: 

10. Why all these changes ? Consider this table This is a clear reflection of a developer having to respond to a rapidly changing market.

THE LAND EXCHANGE1. First application made to DLO/Yuen Long in November 1996 following the first TPB approval but was immediately passed to  the Land Supply & Redevelopment Section to handle.2. Many title problems needed to be resolved and some lots divided by deed poll – hence the metric measurement in the surrender areas.3. First offer of basic terms without premium was received in September 1997.4. Permission to enter Government land for site investigation given October 1997, necessary because of the potential problem of underlying marble caverns.: 

THE LAND EXCHANGE 1. First application made to DLO/Yuen Long in November 1996 following the first TPB approval but was immediately passed to the Land Supply & Redevelopment Section to handle. 2. Many title problems needed to be resolved and some lots divided by deed poll – hence the metric measurement in the surrender areas. 3. First offer of basic terms without premium was received in September 1997. 4. Permission to enter Government land for site investigation given October 1997, necessary because of the potential problem of underlying marble caverns.

Full offer of terms include premium received in February 1998 :a) Re-grant Area:: 30838 m² (about)b) Area to be surrendered : 26220 m² (about)c) Lease Term: 50 yearsd) User: Private Residentiale) Building Covenant: 72 monthsf) maximum GFA 92514m² (ie PR3) minimum GFA 55508m² (60%)g) maximum site coverage :30%h) Design, disposition, height (DDH) clausei) Premium – too much : 

Full offer of terms include premium received in February 1998 : a) Re-grant Area:: 30838 m² (about) b) Area to be surrendered : 26220 m² (about) c) Lease Term: 50 years d) User: Private Residential e) Building Covenant: 72 months f) maximum GFA 92514m² (ie PR3) minimum GFA 55508m² (60%) g) maximum site coverage :30% h) Design, disposition, height (DDH) clause i) Premium – too much 6. Apart from the premium the terms were, subject to minor amendments, acceptable. The administrative fee of $140,000 was paid in March 1998.

 7. Premium negotiations continued for about a year and an agreement was not reached until April 1999. However due to the time taken by LACO to complete title checking the transaction was not completed until September 1999.8. The terms also needed to be amended with a specific height control of 61.5m HKPD and a design & disposition clause. 9. The premium was negotiated down to $394m equivalent to A.V. $396 p.s.f. A reduction of over 50%.10. Significant Points regarding the premium (1) Do not neglect the proper assessment of the ‘Before” value. We were able to establish a ‘Melhado’ value for parking use which greatly enhanced the ‘Before’ value to help lower the premium. : 

7. Premium negotiations continued for about a year and an agreement was not reached until April 1999. However due to the time taken by LACO to complete title checking the transaction was not completed until September 1999. 8. The terms also needed to be amended with a specific height control of 61.5m HKPD and a design & disposition clause. 9. The premium was negotiated down to $394m equivalent to A.V. $396 p.s.f. A reduction of over 50%. 10. Significant Points regarding the premium (1) Do not neglect the proper assessment of the ‘Before” value. We were able to establish a ‘Melhado’ value for parking use which greatly enhanced the ‘Before’ value to help lower the premium.

 (2) Site investigation did reveal the existence of underlying marble caverns that justified a 10% increase in construction costs which in turn helped reduce the ‘After’ value. (3) Market Awareness consider Lands Department’s first offer in February 1998 would have been based on comparables of late 1997 i.e the top of the market. At that time no one could have anticipated the full impact of the market drop.: 

(2) Site investigation did reveal the existence of underlying marble caverns that justified a 10% increase in construction costs which in turn helped reduce the ‘After’ value. (3) Market Awareness consider Lands Department’s first offer in February 1998 would have been based on comparables of late 1997 i.e the top of the market. At that time no one could have anticipated the full impact of the market drop. (4) Go back to our 6 S.16 applications which clearly indicate our ongoing response to the changing market conditions. (5) In a falling market time is on your side, in a rising market time is against you.

THE FINISHED PRODUCTIn the end the scheme comprised 1618 units that were launched for sale in January 2001 at an average sale price of around $2350 per sq. ft. Purchasers took possession in the first quarter of 2002 . Approximately 10% of theproceeds were spent on advertising, sales commission and bank rebates.Today 70 flats are unsold plus many car park spaces.: 

THE FINISHED PRODUCT In the end the scheme comprised 1618 units that were launched for sale in January 2001 at an average sale price of around $2350 per sq. ft. Purchasers took possession in the first quarter of 2002 . Approximately 10% of the proceeds were spent on advertising, sales commission and bank rebates. Today 70 flats are unsold plus many car park spaces.

Master Layout Plan: 

Master Layout Plan The Parcville Our Product

Our Product: 

Our Product The Parcville

Our Achievements: 

Our Achievements HK BEAM Certificate – Excellent Rating

Summary of Environmental Design Features: 

Summary of Environmental Design Features Energy & Water Conservation Features Energy efficient light fittings in all common areas Energy efficient lift system Home appliances w/ energy efficient certification “Dual-flush” sanitary fittings for water conservation Selection of native plants which require less irrigation, and thus less water consumption. Rainwater recyled for irrigation Solar powered landscape light fittings Use of recyled materials for the landscape garden furniture Use of gas shuttle bus Provision of publications for residents to encourage appreciation and learning about nature, the environment and energy conservation. The Parcville

Summary of Environmental Design Features: 

Summary of Environmental Design Features Environmental Comfort Features Extensive landscaped area covering over 60% of site area, with over 2,500 nos.of trees and nearly 200,000 nos. of plants. The plants will provide a “wind shield” reducing uncomfortable wind effect at podium level. Encourage natural ventilation to basement carpark and part of the clubhouse. Provision of windows at both sides of living/dining rooms of every residential unit, encouraging natural cross ventilation. Maximized window areas to let in as much as direct sunlight as possible. Provision of refuse storage room on typical floors of towers for hygenic storage, and also facilitating waste sorting. Provision of cycle parking near GF lobbies, and direct access to cycling paths nearby. Provision of a owner’s handbook on proper usage and maintenance of the flats. The Parcville

Environmental Features: 

Environmental Features Solar Power The sun provides an unlimited natural supply of energy to illuminate the gardens at night. The Parcville

Environmental Features: 

Environmental Features We applied use of solar power produced by photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight directly into electricity. The energy and cost savings are reduce long-term management costs. The Parcville Solar Lights