CPU members unhappy with ‘emergency’ review of Urban Master Plan

Several members of the Urban Planning Committee (CPU) have expressed concerns about the way the government is conducting a review of the city’s Urban Master Plan.

During a CPU meeting yesterday afternoon, several members expressed dissatisfaction with how the process is being managed and with the narrow scope set by the authorities for this review.

At stake is the need to review the city’s 2020–2040 Urban Master Plan to incorporate several new projects announced by Chief Executive (CE) Sam Hou Fai during the 2025 policy address, which are in line with the guidelines established by the Central Government for the future development of Macau.

Although not opposed to revising the Plan, the members called on the authorities to take this opportunity to perform a broader review to address several issues that have emerged over the years, some of which, members said, had been raised during the public consultation of the original plan but were ignored at that time.

Three of the most active members criticizing the methodology and scope of the review were Teng Kai On, Vong Kock Kei, Leong Pou U, and Christine Choi.

The members noted, among other points, the need to realign planning for the Inner Harbour area to better integrate tourism development objectives and to link with planning for the West Line of the Light Rapid Transit (LRT).

Also on the table was the debate over the need to address land use for the NAPE and ZAPE areas after the closure of all satellite casinos, to allow the area to redevelop quickly for other purposes.

However, the government noted that the report under discussion was simply prepared by the same consultancy that produced the original Plan and aimed to facilitate the development of four new flagship projects, which CPU president and DSSCU director Lai Weng Leong said three directly influence the Master Plan.

“We should review the Urban Master Plan because the government, in the 2025 Policy Address, noted that we have to implement these four main projects. Three of these relate to the Master Plan,” Lai said, noting that the fourth, related to the so-called “University Town,” is located in Hengqin and therefore outside the CPU’s scope.

The three projects prompting the review of the Urban Master Plan are the International Integrated Tourism and Cultural Zone, the Science and Technology R&D Industrial Park, and the International Aviation Hub (Pearl River West Bank).

According to the representative of the consultancy firm responsible for the review report, the Plan needs revision because the land plots proposed for the three projects are located in reserved land that, in most cases, had been pre-assigned for different purposes in the original plan.

The representative also explained that, since the International Integrated Tourism and Cultural Zone is set to occupy Zones B and C of the new landfills, it is necessary to review the purpose allocation for such spaces, noting, “The Master Plan had assigned the west side of Zone B to public community area infrastructure, which can be repurposed. Zone C was originally assigned as a commercial and residential area, which needs to be amended to include public facilities and community use areas.”

As for the Science and Technology R&D Industrial Park, the report notes that the government plans to use land plots at Avenida de Wai Long and the west section of the Zone E landfills, which, besides requiring repurposing from commercial and residential to industrial, also calls for some restructuring of the transport network in the area, the representative remarked.

A similar issue arises with the need to expand the space originally assigned to the airport, which must now include additional facilities, such as a seaport. Other proposed changes include reassignment of the area between Zone A and the Peninsula as an aquatic canal, since the Central Government did not approve the landfill that would have linked the two sides and served as a green leisure area, among other details.

For the members, more than merely rubber-stamping the political decisions of new development guidelines, as Vong said, this is a prime opportunity to readdress the Plan and its shortcomings.

Member Teng also noted difficulties members have encountered recently in discussing specific urban condition plans (PCUs) due to incompatibility between the Master Plan and new development ideas, particularly urban renewal projects. He highlighted the area surrounding Avenida de Almeida Ribeiro and its links to the Inner Harbour, which the government has been repurposing for commercial areas, effectively halting potential renewal projects as owners do not see value in the area for this purpose. In fact, it is known that the commercial zones of this district have been systematically struggling.

Vong added that, in his view, a more significant amendment should be proposed, including the reassignment of the Inner Harbour Piers for passenger-only and tourism use, which would link to the West Line of the LRT. He, like Teng, argued that land plots cannot be considered in isolation but must be viewed within the broader context, with attention to how reshaping the city would affect surrounding areas and neighboring plots.

This idea was also supported by Choi and Leong, with the latter refusing to conduct an “emergency” review that is not consistent with any regulations or legal framework for revising the Master Plan, merely to allow one or two projects to proceed faster. He noted that many members have contributed valid opinions and suggestions that should be addressed in a timely and proper manner.

He also questioned whether the consultancy’s “quick-fix” approach left sufficient time for broader public consultation, as would normally be required.

Government officials insisted that “it is not the time for an extensive review” and that the current effort is solely to address specific projects, ensuring Macau can develop along its intended path. In contrast, members called for a thorough review, which could potentially “save the government time and money, and create a long-lasting Plan that would remain current for another 10 years or more.”