Several members of the Urban Planning Committee (CPU) have expressed disagreement with the criteria used by the government to evaluate the maximum height allowable for buildings that can be built in a certain land plot.
The argument started yesterday during the fourth regular meeting of 2022 of the CPU while analyzing the urban conditions plan (PCU) for a land plot located in central Macau in the corner of number 9 of the Rua de Ferreira do Amaral with numbers 2-2B of the Rua de Abreu Nunes.
According to conditions drafted by the Land and Urban Construction Bureau (DSSCU), the maximum height allowed for this land plot is 20.5 meters, a ceiling that raised concerns from several members since, in the same area, there are buildings with a maximum height of as much as 47 meters.
The first to present a discordant opinion was the member Tam Chi Wai who noted precisely the height factor and expressed concerns that this type of approach from DSSCU could potentially “pose harm to the rights of the landowners.”
The DSSCU explained that height is not the only factor considered when reviewing where land plots are located, adding that there are other land conditions taken into account, such as the possibility of building a parking lot, among others.
The same DSSCU representative also noted that, according to the guidelines of the bureau, only land plots with an area larger than 350 square meters (m2) are considered for the construction of high-rise buildings and since, in this case, the land area is only 325m2, the services concluded that it does not meet the conditions needed for issuing a PCU for an M class building with a height up to 20.5m
Responding to the DSSCU, another committee member, sharing Tam’s opinion, called on the government to have a little more flexibility in the guidelines, noting that 325m2 is just less than 10% short than the 350m2 required by the DSSCU, noting that when they encountered such “small differences” the CPU should allow the architect and owner to try to present a project design that can fulfill the interests of both the government and the land owner, instead of creating a limitation at the start by issuing a PCU that does not give them any options.
“We have had this before. We should keep this flexibility,” the same member said in an opinion backed by Tam also noting that the minimum of 350m2 is just an internal guideline from the DSSCU and is not presented in any rules or documentation as an essential requirement.
In response, the chairman of the CPU, and deputy director of DSSCU, Mak Tat Io, said that the 350m2 requirement was the result of an easing of a prior requirement that demanded 400m2.
Mak explained that even if the DSSCU lowers this requirement, the experience that officials have in dealing with these cases is that the conditions for a high-rise building are impossible to meet for such a small plot, as conditions are much higher for this type of building.
For the CPU chairman to issue a PCU that allows a 47m building on such a plot is to “create an unrealistic expectation and give an unrealistic illusion to the owner” that will waste a lot of time and money before it is finally discovered that is not possible to meet the criteria.
Not satisfied with the response from the government, member Choi Wan Sun then proposed that in these cases the DSSCU issue two or more PCUs with different conditions according to the case of the low-rise or high-rise building so the owner and the architect could evaluate the options and decide which one better suits their purpose.
Mak said that the services will evaluate such a proposal but noted that the DSSCU “always use [on the issuing of PCUs] conditions that are more appropriate to each situation.”
Another committee member also proposed that the public be informed of the land area required, as they may then consider acquiring or negotiating with the owners of adjoining land plot before requesting a PCU.
