Tempers flare over lax Fisherman’s Wharf planning regulations

Urban Planning Committee’s plenary meeting yesterday

Heated discussions flared at the Urban Planning Committee’s plenary meeting yesterday on the greatly relaxed height and density restrictions for the Fisherman’s Wharf resort planning. Regarding the government’s draft plan that lifted the area’s upper height limit initially from 48 meters to 90 meters, many members of the advisory body voiced strong opposition or questioned the rationale of such “unusual change.”
The advisors pointed out that the construction of high hotel towers on the area – located in an urban waterfront and on a reclaimed land plot – would cast significant and irreversible impact on the city’s coastal landscape, skyline and airflow, whilst blocking the view of the world heritage listed Guia Light House. Many members also urged for an environment impact assessment (EIA), traffic flow report, and the advantage analysis of building a 90-meter hotel there.
As the stalemate remained unresolved, the controversy was retained for the committee’s next meeting where the developer and the Land, Public Works and Transport Bureau (DSSOPT) representatives would supplement these necessary materials for more comprehensive analyses.
The DSSOPT had handed over a draft plan to the Committee for opinions last year, where the height limit of buildings was raised to 60 meters. With a total of 18 opinions collected in a public consultation afterwards, the bureau decided to further raise the height limit, while increasing the maximum plot ratio from 1.7 to 2.6 and the maximum building coverage from 42% to 55%.
A committee member indicated that “increasing the new building’s plot ratio to 2.6 would increase its total floor area by 120,000 square meters, which is equal to that of three Grand Lisboa hotels; whilst increasing the building coverage ratio to 55 percent would cover a plot of 17,000 more square meters, which is a size of two and half football pitches.”
In response to the advisors’ opposition and doubts, the DSSOPT’s acting deputy director, Cheong Ion Man, explained that the further relaxation in the area’s height limit was “made in compliance with the former Chief Executive (CE)’s instruction issued in 2008.” Moreover, he revealed the draft planning conditions for Fisherman’s Wharf was changed because the developer had submitted new construction plans.
Another bureau representative also stated, “The intended project is not a real estate project but to build facilities for tourism, convention and exhibition, which is in line with Macau’s positioning of a world tourism and leisure hub. Besides, high towers are the trend for urbanism.”
However, many members of the Urban Planning Committee believed the reason for the relaxation was unjustified and the authorities’ explanation unconvincing. They questioned whether the city needed to follow such a development path, and maintained that the CE’s instruction is not a law but merely a reference based on good intentions, which only instructs the celling of intended height limits rather than a definite or the suitable decision.
As the instruction was issued as a response to UNESCO’s dissent, lawmaker Mak Soi Kun argued that “if the height limit stipulated in the instruction wasn’t recognized by the UNESCO, Macau would have been removed from the World Heritage list; as UNESCO didn’t object to the instruction, there is no problem with [the height limit of] 90 meters.”
Another member also endorsed the loosened restrictions, arguing that, “as the opinions are divided, the decision should be obeying the existing legal mandate in order to balance the area’s development and the heritage conservation.”

Legend vs New Macau

As the planning conditions for Fisherman’s Wharf haven’t gained the authorities’ approval, the developer – Macau Legend Development – expects a possible delay of the project’s construction. The company’s Executive Vice President, Ip Weng Fa, listened in on the Committee’s meeting yesterday and told media that they believe the relaxed height limit could drive the city’s entire tourism and leisure economy. By contrast, representatives of the New Macau Association civil group protested against the plan and petitioned to protect the Guia landscape.