Mall proposal rejected

August 31, 2011

In response to media enquiries today about a political party’s suggestion the Government give consent to the developer of The Pulse shopping centre in Repulse Bay to lease shops in parallel with the premium negotiation between the developer and the Lands Department, the Development Bureau said such a proposal was not worthy of consideration.
 
The bureau said in replying to that political party, the department has already explained in detail its suggestion is not viable and is not consistent with established practice. It said the lot is the remaining portion of Rural Building Lot No.368. The owner completed The Pulse on the lot without Government consent, and is in breach of the lease conditions.
 
Notwithstanding the building plans for the redevelopment of the lot were disapproved by the department, the owner chose to build without the Government’s consent despite its repeated warnings.
 
It said the owner has initiated legal proceedings which was dismissed by the Court of First Instance judgment. The owner’s solicitors have lodged a Notice of Appeal, but to-date they have not fixed a date for hearing the appeal.
 
The case concerns a breach of lease condition and involves a sizable land premium for the grant of consent under the lease, the bureau said, adding any suggestion to allow the developer to bring into operation the built premises, let alone to lease shops to third parties, will send a most undesirable message to lessees and has an adverse implication on land administration practice.
 
The bureau said the interests of the tenants who would be subject to the tenancies to be created under the circumstances described in such a suggestion will not be adequately safeguarded in view the consent under the lease and land premium issues have not yet been concluded.
 
The owner had without prejudice to its appeal with the court submitted to the department its application for consent under the lease subject to payment of land premium and the department had made a binding basic terms offer, including the premium amount, to the owner. The owner submitted a premium appeal submission to the department recently.
 
The bureau said there is an established procedure for the department to deal with an appeal against the land premium and the associated premium negotiations. The department does not see any reason not to apply the procedure to this case.
 
The department was acting in the capacity of a private landlord to process the owner’s redevelopment on the lot in accordance with the applicable procedures, it said, adding it was the owner’s responsibility to obtain consent under the lease before commencing its redevelopment.