Miss Odelia LEUNG,

Chief Assistant Secretary (1)1

Mrs Mary TANG,

Senior Assistant Secretary (1)2

Meeting with professional institutes

2. The Chairman invited each of the following professional institutes to give a succinct account of their views on the SEKD.

(a) Hong Kong Institute of Architects (HKIA)
(LC Paper No. CB(1)353/98-99(01)(a))

3. Dr HO Tao stated the objection of HKIA to the proposed SEKD. He said that in evaluating the proposal, three aspects had to be considered, namely, whether the development was a sustainable one; whether it would benefit Hong Kong in the long run; and whether it would improve the quality of life of Hong Kong residents. With the use of transparencies, Dr HO apprised members of the effects of proposed reclamation for the SEKD. He said that the extent of reclamation as proposed would have serious adverse impact on the environment, the aesthetics and the general well-being of the Victoria Harbour. Hong Kong was renowned for its world famous Victoria Harbour and the proposed reclamation was likened to reclaiming the West Lake of Hang Zhou. He failed to see the need for reclaiming part of Kowloon Bay to make way for the Metropolitan Park since the body of water in Kowloon Bay was itself a natural "open space" which could be used for recreational purposes if properly treated and maintained.

4. According to Dr HO, the proposed development above the existing Kai Tak runway and the apron area was besieged with problems. The solid rock filled foundation below the Kai Tak runway made piling almost impossible. Furthermore, the soil conditions of the runway and the apron area had been affected seriously by leakage of jet fuel oil accumulated over the years. As such, the area was extremely hazardous for extensive development involving underground construction. The treatment proposed by the consultants of the Environmental Protection Department had not followed rigorous standards. Moreover, the proposed plan did not attempt to resolve the pollution problem of the Kai Tak Nullah.

5. Dr HO said that the primary objective of the proposed development was to create isolated land parcels for sale rather than to provide a sustainable development. The future outlook of the area as proposed would be similar to the existing nearby housing estates. A target population of 320,000 in the proposed development would aggravate traffic and environmental problems in the already congested area. Furthermore, the proposed development which would require 18 years to complete could hardly meet the immediate needs of the community nor could it be expected to meet future housing and transport requirements which were subject to change.

6. Concluding his presentation, Dr HO said that the proposed SEKD was unsustainable and extremely costly. A time frame of 18 years for completion of the whole development was unacceptable. The proposed development would create a characterless waterfront image and showed a lack of planning vision for the 21st Century. Dr HO called for a more innovative and environmental friendly alternative to develop the Kai Tak area.

(b) Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors(HKIS)
(LC Paper No. CB(1)353/98-99(01)(b))

7. Mr Roger NISSIM said that HKIS believed that the following points should be addressed prior to preparing a revised plan for SEKD -

1. Land transport and land allocation for roads
   
   Despite the objective of housing an estimated population of 320,000, there had been no mention in the plan about the provision of a rail system except the zoning of a railway depot. HKIS considered the provision of a rail system essential for an urban development of this scale. Furthermore, of the 600 hectares of land to be produced through reclamation, one-third would be dedicated to building roads. This was a disproportionate allocation of land for transportation and would need to be rationalised to incorporate the provision of a rail system. The land transport system and the road allocation system were interrelated and had to be addressed in a more comprehensive manner.
   
   
2. Land allocation for commercial and residential uses
   
   HKIS considered the proposed designation of commercial sites unsatisfactory as this had not taken into account the need for accessibility. Commercial sites should best be centered around railway stations for easy access. On the residential side, Mr NISSIM said that the majority of the sites under zoning were reserved for either public housing, Home Ownership Schemes or Private Sector Participation Schemes. Only two of the 14 sites had been zoned for private housing. This represented a gross imbalance between provision of public and private housing. The proposed residential mix should be reviewed in the light of the prevailing market conditions.
   
   
3. Provision of open spaces
   
   HKIS had strong reservations about the proposal to reclaim a large area of the harbour for the provision of open spaces. The harbour already served a valuable open space function and could not be replaced. The maximisation of the harbour reclamation would have deleterious effects on the aesthetics of Hong Kong. Nevertheless, there were more justifications for the extent of reclamation proposed in SEKD than in the Central and Wanchai Reclamation project but the scale of reclamation and land use planning should be further studied.
   
   
4. Public consultation
   
   HKIS was concerned about the lack of a proper consultation process under the current planning legislation and suggested the introduction of a better and more transparent planning process to minimize confrontation with the public.

1. The overall time needed for completion of SEKD would render Kowloon Bay as a building site for almost a generation;
   
   
2. The 50-hectare Metropolitan Park indicated a flawed planning mentality; and
   
   
3. The provision of 40% of reclaimed land for building roads was excessive and would create further transport problems.