January 20, 2006
-
<笑撚死>
規劃署完成最新的工業用地需求調查，指出本港未來八年雖有足夠工業用地，惟之後的五年將出現求過於供問題，故促請城巿規劃委員會成員日後審議工業用地轉作其他用途時，作出審慎決定，以免未來因工業用地不足，而未能發揮其在珠江三角洲的地位。城規會明日將開會討論本港工業用地需求。
根據資料，由去年至2012年的八年期間，本港有額外155公頃工業用地供市場使用，但供應量持續減少，由去年額外有40.5公頃，減至2012年只有額外1.9公頃，2013年時更逆轉欠缺2.5公頃用地，求過於供情況更會不斷惡化，2017年將欠20.5公頃工業用地。規劃署的文件認為，隨本港落實CEPA政策以及在珠江三角洲的發展，未來需要一定的工業用地作貨物儲存之用，本港過去數年已把246公頃工業用地轉作其他發展用途，現仍有305公頃工業用地，提供1億8200萬平方米樓面面積。
(成報)
Comments (5)
其實超聰明, 如果話劃做住宅用地, 實拖低個市.
家陣話係工業用地, 等d 發展商遲d先補地價, 正一唔覺唔覺幫佢發達…
好想睇下佢憑什麼認為香港將來會「需要」那麼多工業用地。除非把用作「開倉」的outlet和名為工廠，實為office的需求都算進去，也可能說得通。
For information Only
1. Please notice that town planing and land admin. belong to two different tiers of land controls in HK.
Planning: administrative
Land lease: contractual (between HKSAR and lease holder)
2. planning = industrial use not necessarily implies anything for lease terms or even land premiums, i.e. planning = industrial use, land user under lease can be = commercial/residential
3. and in fact, definition of “industrial use” under town planning can be completely different from that under land lease.
4. planning dept has no jurisdiction / authority over town planning; but TOWN PLANNING BOARD does
5. fyi, definition of industrial use under land lease: a place where manufacturing process takes place (ibid) – a necessary but not a sufficient condition – and therefore if you can prove that the user belongs to parts of the manufacturing process, i.e. design, there should be no breach of user clause under land lease, even from the public point of view that the place is being used as an “office”.
Similarly, a place where seemingly being used for “industrial” purpose, i.e. car repairing, may in fact be in breach of land user under land lease (repairing is an after sale service, not a manufacturing process, prima facie)
while under town planning, the above “interpretation” does not necessarily hold, see
“Chapter 1 INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE” (trust i quote this correctly)
規劃處的確無法決定土地用途. 但工業地轉作其他用途, 需要城規會批准. 如城規會接納上述報告, 在考慮更改土地用途申請時會更加保守, 繼續把 “工業地” 留在香港. 地政處只負責在城規會同意更改土地用途後收取補地價.
與任何香港人說本地的工業土地十年後會有短缺. 大把人即刻搵青山專車載你入院.
實情我不知道, 但 kursk 所說的, 有可能係答案.
“在考慮更改土地用途申請時會更加保守” that MAY constitute ”ultra vires” (and in fact quite a serious allegation against both the planning dept and the TPB - though the dependence and reasonableness of TPB has been the talk of town for many years)
“地政處只負責在城規會同意更改土地用途後收取補地價” that’s NOT TRUE in principle.
“與任何香港人說本地的工業土地十年後會有短缺” it depends on how you define “industrial use”
as mentioned, if you consider “design” as parts of a manufacturing process, there may be such “shortage” (though i doubt the market demand for “design” in HK as well”)
therefore i doubt if “大把人即刻搵青山專車載你入院” will necessarily follow.
of course, the above are from the so called “technical” aspects, and no “political” motives of any kind are being taken into consideration.
and from the “investors” or i-bankers’ point of view, there should always be plenty of shortage.(consider the difference in premiums between I and O users, you will see the point)
FYI
in fact, there are now many investment funds specializing in acquiring industrial properties in HK, for reason I dare not to speculate. Of course, one possibility, as your good-selves stated previously, is for future “other” purpose. and
in fact, peripherally, the profitability of investing in the real estate market has been deterioated since 1997, see SHK annual report
Anyway, I understand the foregoing are comments only, however, it seems to me that there are many areas that need to be clarified before concluding.