Container Terminal Nos. 1, 2 and 5 and Extension Area

2012 to 2015

The Kwai Chung OZP No. S/KC/26 was imposed with extensive planning controls in the form of Building Height Restrictions (BHRs), Non-Building Areas (NBAs), Set Backs (SBs) etc. Masterplan was commissioned by Modern Terminal Limited (MTL) to submit a representation in relation to CTs 1, 2, 5 (the Site). Large area of the Site was imposed with a BHR of 2 storeys. A small part of the Site was imposed with BHRs of 25mPD and 75mPD to reflect the BH of the existing buildings.

Even though the 2 storey BHR did not apply to the stacking height of containers and crane structure, the restriction making the latest technology of Container Storage System unable to be developed as such system of about 8 to 10 storeys.

​

Representation Reasons

The representation listed out the main opposing reasons as follows:

​

• There is inadequate justification for the BHRs on the Site as they do not relate to any specific air ventilation issue or visual context;

• The BHRs are mainly based on the existing building form and height and are unreasonable controls allowing no room for expansion or improvement to the efficiency of the container terminal: there is no logical reason for the 2 storeys BHR over most of the Site

• 95% of the Representation Site is covered by the 2 storeys restriction whereas other sites have a much greater

• percentage of the site with higher BHRs.  Equitable treatment should be given to all sites within the OU(CT) zone;

• The BHRs are set so low, especially the 2 storey restriction as to be contrary to the planning intention for the Site, and contrary to Government policy in relation to the logistics industry and the function that the site has to perform in this context; and

• The BHRs do not enable achievement of the development rights under the lease, whereas this is achieved under the

• “OU(B)” zone which relates to other industrial sites in Kwai Chung and this is irrational and inconsistent;

• The unique nature of the container terminals and their important function in the movement of goods to and from ships berthed alongside has not been recognised when setting the objectives for the BH profile.  The existence of large buildings, tall structures and stacks of containers means that the “low-rise’ principle along the waterfront cannot be reasonably applied given the facts of the situation;

• There has been no clear identification of the public benefit to be obtained in establishing the BHRs on the Site, and no systematic balancing process carried out to justify the extent of BHR required, if any.

Proposed Options

​

The representation put forward three options to the OU(CT) zone to cater for the permitted development potential as well as the long term development needs of the logistic industry , they are a) 180mPD, b) 110mPD, and c) 70mPD/110mPD options.

​

TPB Decisions and Achievements

​

After the hearing of representations, the Board instructed Planning Department to liaise with CT operators to work out with the reasonable planning controls which could cater for the operation of the CTs.

Masterplan and MTL worked with the adjacent CT operators and their consultants to present the CTs’ development plans to PlanD.  Regular meetings were held over 2 years to discuss and adjust the development plans and identify air ventilation corridors through the CTs. The results of the meetings were presented to and were accepted by the TPB.

​

After the necessary planning procedures, the BHR of the majority of the CTs 1,2,5 has been increased from various BHRs to 110mPD, a small part from 2 storeys to 70mPD and the copeline at 2 storeys to 25mPD.