| 摘要: | 從都市發展的歷史與演變過程中可以發現，都市所面臨的問題錯綜複雜，於是需要都市計畫來對於都市的發展加以規範和指導，我國目前都市計畫下包含主要計畫及細部計畫，主要以土地使用分區管制作為其工具，對於土地使用的區位、種類及強度訂定其規範，以維持都市機能之健全，而除了傳統的土地使用管制外，都市計畫還應包含都市更新，使都市能持續的發展、更新，而不至於衰敗。
本研究觀察到，於2010年引起爭議的南港輪胎案，是因為容積獎勵而引起的。南港輪胎案於2009年10月依據都市計畫法，申請變更為特定專用區，主要計畫中規定加上容積獎勵後總容積率上限390%，但其後業者又以都市更新策略性再開發地區為名，申請容積率上限達449%，粗估可增加約27億元獲利，因而引發極大爭議。
從本案例可發現，目前我國的都市更新條例與都市計畫法之間似乎存在矛盾的關係，國內都市更新條例屬於特別法，又依據都市更新條例第三條及內政部營建署之解釋令，都市更新以及依其他相關法令申請之容積獎勵，若超過主要計畫上限，仍可依法向主管機關進行申請，造成本案例在容積獎勵的申請上可以不受到都市計畫法的最高容積上限規定，但都市更新理應為都市計畫中的一部分，都市計畫是整個都市發展的最上位指導原則，如今卻出現了都市更新條例自成一格，甚至凌駕於都市計畫之上的不合理現象，即都市計畫之計畫體系，與容積獎勵法令規範的法制體系間形成衝突與矛盾。
本研究主要希望探討容積獎勵政策與都市計畫間的競合，分別從計畫體系和法制體系的觀點作探討，以及分析容積獎勵制度的合理性及公平性，並利用深度訪談以研擬出課題並提出對策。
本研究發現，目前都市計畫因法令位階的關係，確實無法限制都市更新給予之容積獎勵上限，但都市發展應以都市計畫為依歸，都市更新應受都市計畫之規範，但在現行容積獎勵制度下，都市計畫未必能發揮控制容積之功能，而同時，都市計畫有時也因年代久遠，未必符合現今社會環境需要，因此，本研究提出：應重新評估基準容積率標準、訂定容積總量上限、修改都市更新容積獎勵規定，使其受都市計畫規範、改善容積獎勵給予標準，以及主管機關應調整其對容積獎勵之心態，等五點建議。
In view of the history of urban development and evolution, we can realize that there are so many complex problems in urban, therefore, using urban plan to regulate and guide the development of the city is necessary. Our current urban plan contains master plan and detailed plan. In order to maintain functions of urban, we use zoning as a tool to norms for the location, type and intensity of land use. In addition to the zoning, urban planning should also include urban renewal, so the city can continue to develop, redevelop , rather than decline.
Controversial in 2010, Nankang tire case, is caused because of the floor area incentive. In October 2009, Nankang tires case in accordance with the Urban Planning Act, to apply the changes to industrial zone for a particular precinct. Total maximum floor area ratio in the master plan was 390%, included floor area incentive. However, the developers expected to increase the maximum floor area ratio up to 449% with urban renewal strategic development areas. Therefore, about an additional $ 2.7 billion profit, and thus caused considerable controversy.
It seems to contradict between Urban Renewal Act and Urban Planning Act, because urban renewal regulation is special law. Furthermore, based on the interpretation of the Ministry of the Interior Construction and Planning Agency, if the floor area incentive that based on the Urban Renewal Act and other relevant laws exceeds the upper limit of the master plan, can still apply to the competent authorities in accordance with the law to apply. Resulting the floor area incentive is not subject to the limits of the Urban Planning Act. But urban renewal should be part of the urban planning, urban planning is the most upper guiding principles of urban development, but now the Urban Renewal Act sui generis, even above the top of the urban planning, that's the conflict between Urban Renewal Act and Urban Planning Act.
With the point of view of the planning system and the legal system, this study aims to explore the competition between the floor area incentive policy and urban planning, and analysis the rationality and fairness of the floor area incentive. After that, using depth interviews to develop the topic and propose a solution.
This study found that urban planning due to the decree level, cannot limit the maximum floor area incentive given by urban renewal. However, urban planning should guide urban's development, but in the current floor area incentive system, urban planning can not control the floor area incentive.Sometimes age-old urban planning may not be consistent with today's social environment requires, therefore, this study proposes : should re-evaluate the base floor area ratio standards, set floor area limit, revise the Urban Renewal Act, improving floor area incentive given standard and The authority shall adjust its mindset on the floor area incentive. |
