Transcript Document

PPR project:
Urban planning and innovations for
sustainable city development: an
analytical and empirical analysis of
master layout plans for
comprehensive development areas
Prof. LWC Lai,
Prof. KW Chau and Dr. SK Wong
The University of Hong Kong
Topic
• This PPR project aims to examine whether
comprehensively developed housing projects
subject to planning conditions imposed by the
Town Planning Board can reduce environmental
problems while at the same time introducing
new private floor space and communal facilities.
• Development could thus be a vehicle
transforming negative environmental threats into
positive environmental effects and achieving a
win-win solution as a step towards sustainable
development.
Summary of findings
• Audit results based on site visits: there is no statutory
enforcement mechanism, time limit for compliance or
administrative inspection by the planning authority.
• While there were observed incidences of non-compliance
at the time of inspection, a matter previously raised by the
research team in a HKU press conference, local
developers generally adopt a policy of self-enforcement.
• The degree of compliance was found better than that
achieved in the UK.
• However, statistical tests using a regression model on the
relationship between comprehensive development and
environmental complaints (itself somewhat weakened by
the refusal by EPD to disclose specific complaint
addresses) did not provide strong evidence that planning
conditions actually minimize environmental nuisance.
Policy implications
• This study exposes an inherent development control
weakness in public enforcement of planning conditions,
though developers compliance is generally satisfactory.
• If Government is to be serious about sustainable
development, it is urged to review and reform the
present practice of imposing loosely structured planning
restrictions as well as disclosing non-sensitive
environmental complaint data to monitor effectiveness of
planning policies.
• Indeed, this is further evidence that the time for a
comprehensive reform of the development approval
processes is ripe.
Publication 1
• Lai, L.W.C., Yung, P., Li, R.Y.M. and Ho.
D.C.W. (2007) “The Private Supply of and
Public Demand for Planning: Compliance
with Planning Conditions in the Absence of
Direct Statutory Enforcement Measures.”
Planning Policy and Research, Vol.22,
No.4, pp.535 - 557.
Publication 2
• Lai, L.W.C., Liu, K.T. and Yung, P (2009),
“Planning Conditions for Comprehensive
Development Area Zones: a Technical
Note on a Survey on Factual Compliance
and the Deposit of Associated Master
Layout Plans at the Land Registry,”
Planning and Development. Vol.24, No.1,
pp. 2 - 14.
Abstract
• Although there can be serious potential legal
consequences for failing to comply with planning
conditions, there have been few local studies on their
factual compliance.
• This technical note investigates all 73 sites involving 266
approved planning applications for residential use within
CDA zones from 2001 to 2005.
• Evidence of non-compliance with planning conditions by
developers exists.
• On the other hand, approved master layout plans for 30 out
of the 73 sites were absent from the Land Registry.
• These observations raised professional concerns about the
absence of a systematic and regular audit of compliance
with planning conditions, as well as the efficiency of the
current practice of depositing at the Lands Registry the
approved master layout plans for Comprehensive
Development Area zones.
Publication 3
• Lai, L.W.C. (2009), “Bridges Too Far,
Garden Too Secret: the Double Danger of
Disallowing Planning Conditions to Avoid
Technical Problems and Perpetuating a
Defensive Mentality.” Planning and
Development, Vol. 25, No.1, pp. 23 - 25.
Some reflections
• ‘Insiders’ wish to restrict ‘outsider’ access to them both to
avoid potential ‘trouble’ and to preserve their exclusivity.
• ‘Outsiders’, in contrast, whilst they complain about being
excluded from what in principle is a public space, in fact
have no desire to roam in so physically repellent a space,
but resent the exclusivity and ugly gigantism the planning
system creates, and so protest.
• What is to be noted is that it is the planning system that
has created its own problem.
• On the one hand a group of ‘insiders’ occupying
pretentiously exclusive, high security, high rise
developments with purportedly ‘public’ spaces.
• On the other the ‘outsiders’ who dislike the physical
structures that condescend to them, exclude them and
create an ugly and unfriendly urban environment and thus
use the ‘public open space’ issue to voice their objections.
Publication 4:
LWC Lai, GC Lam, KW Chau, CWY Hung, SK Wong,
RYM Li, (2009), “Statutory zoning and the Environment
,” Property Management, Vol.27, No.4, pp.242-266.
Research questions
RQ1. Do planning conditions improve the
environment?
•
By analyzing relevant statistics
RQ2. Do public comments affect the
formulation of planning conditions?
•
By a field survey of the decision-making
process
RQ1 – initial attempt
•
Do planning conditions improve the
environment?
–
–
•
Planning conditions: site-specific restrictions
imposed by the planning authority when it approves
planning proposals from individual sites
Environment: environmental complaints (more direct
than property value)
Ideal hypothesis:
–
Development projects subject to more restrictive
planning conditions have fewer environmental
complaints than those subject to less restrictive
planning conditions
RQ1 – however
• We faced data problems
– Mining all s.16 applications in 1996-2006, planning
conditions have become more wordy, but not
necessarily more restrictive
– EPD got all environmental complaint data, but she
refused to disclose the exact location of the
complaints due to personal data privacy
(anyway, we are grateful to EPD’s assistance and patience to
our data requests)
• As such, it is not possible to match the location
of planning conditions with that of environmental
complaints
– data only permits analysis at the broad district level
RQ1 – second best approach
• “Comprehensive development area”
(CDA) zones are known to have most
restrictive planning conditions
– Does CDA zoning reduce environmental
complaints?
• Hypothesis 1 (H1):
– Districts with greater area zoned as CDA
have fewer environmental complaints
H1 test method
• Divide environmental complaint data from EPD
into 11 metro districts
• Estimate complaints per capita from census data
(to control for population size)
• For each district, estimate the % of land zoned
as CDA
• Relate environmental complaints per capita with
% CDA area through cross section regression
and Pearson correlation
• Do the above for three years: 1996, 2001, 2006
H1 results: 2006
Proportion of land zoned as CDA
3.5%
3.0%
Kowloon City
Kwun Tong
Eastern
2.5%
Correlation: -37%
(but insignificant)
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
Sham Shui Po
Yau Tsim
Mong
Southern
Tsuen Wan
0.5%
Kwai Tsing
Wong Tai Sin
Central &
0.0%
Western
0
2
4
6
Wan Chai
8
No. of complaints (per 1,000 population)
10
12
H1 interpretation
• Find weak evidence that districts with
greater area zoned as CDA have fewer
environmental complaints
– Similar results for years 1996, 2001, 2006
– Similar results after controlling for income
• Limited sample size
– Data privacy prevents more detailed analysis
at the building level
RQ1 – dynamic approach
• Restrictiveness of the statutory zoning system
may be reflected by its “passing rate”
– Planning applications have a low chance of approval
in a restrictive zoning regime
– How are passing rates related to environmental
complaints over time?
• Hypothesis 2 (H2):
– A lower passing rate today results in fewer
environmental complaints in future (if the system
successfully rejects applications detrimental to the
environment)
– A lower passing rate today results in more
environmental complaints in future (if the system fails
to pass applications beneficial to the environment)
H2 results: 1986-2003
100%
90%
12,000
Passing rate at year t
80%
Passing rate
10,000
70%
60%
8,000
50%
6,000
40%
Environmental
complaints
30%
20%
4,000
Correlation: 42%
(marginally significant)
10%
0%
2,000
0
6
8
19
8
8
19
0
9
19
2
9
19
4
9
19
6
9
19
8
9
19
0
0
20
02
0
2
Environmental complaints at year t+3
14,000
H2 interpretation
• Although the graph appears to show a positive
relationship between environmental complaints and
lagged passing rates, it does not control for time factors
– e.g. development of complaint culture over time
• Further time series analysis suggests
– Insignificant relationship as a whole after controlling for time
trend and/or autocorrelation
– Results are mixed for individual regions: positive but insignificant
for HKI and NT; negative and significant for Kowloon
• No conclusive result can be drawn for the argument that
TPB’s passing rates have any impact on future
environmental complaints
RQ2 – background
• Major amendments of TPO in 2005
– TPB meetings and minutes open to the public
– New/amended/draft plans exhibited for public
inspection and comments
– Planning applications open for public
inspection and comments
• Do public comments affect the formulation
of planning conditions?
RQ2 – findings
• Vet 151 applications heard during the period
April 2006 to April 2007
• Only 3 cases have public comments
incorporated into planning conditions
• Conduct of the decision-making meetings
– Deliberation session closed to the public
– The “open” part is mainly for presenting the case and
clarification questions
• heated arguments or debates not heard
• public can only watch and listen to the open session in a
separate viewing room through a television
• mostly finished within 5 min
Conclusion
• Limited by the use of district-level data, we found
little evidence that more restrictive planning
conditions (in the form of CDA zoning) reduce
environmental complaints
• The impact of planning applications’ success
rates on future environmental complaints is
ambiguous
• The time taken to deliberate on any application
is far too short and the actual influence of public
ideas on planning outcomes is slight