LC: Motion Debate on Central and Wanchai Reclamation

************************************************

Following is the speech by the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands, Mr Bowen Leung, during the Motion Debate on Central and Wanchai Reclamation in the Legislative Council on July 29, 1998:

Madame President,

Reclamation is a sensitive subject that touches the heart and emotions of many Hong Kong people. Hong Kong's history begins with Victoria Harbour, which has served many different roles at various times. It gave us a deep water port for trade; it supported our past sizeable fishing community; it became a tourist attraction, and it provided us with the space for reclaiming many pieces of valuable land for urban and economic development. We therefore fully share the public sentiments for preserving this natural heritage.

The subject of today's motion is the proposed Central Reclamation. The land use plan has been published as a draft Outline Zoning Plan for public consultation. The objection period ends today. The Town Planning Board will, as provided by law, consider all the views received, meet with objectors, and make its recommendations to the Chief Executive in Council for a decision. I should not and do not intend to comment on any of the submissions made to the TPB. However, in the course of today's debate, it appears to me that there are quite a number of misunderstandings on the proposed reclamation which I would wish to take this opportunity to clarify.

First, some of the views expressed seem to imply that the proposed reclamation in Central is a new idea and that Government has not thought through it thoroughly. This is absolutely not true. The proposed reclamation is perhaps one of the infrastructure projects which the Government have taken most seriously and have researched most extensively. Since 1982, no fewer than 15 consultancy studies costing over $170 million have been undertaken to look into the various aspects of this project from town planning, urban design, engineering to environmental impacts. These include the Study on Harbour Reclamation and Urban Growth in 1983, the Territory Development Strategy in 1984, the CWR Feasibility Study in 1989, the Metroplan in 1991, the CWR-Development of Urban Design Parameters Study in 1994, the TDS Review in 1998 and a number of environmental impact studies conducted since 1996 covering the cumulative effects of reclamation, water quality, hydraulics, wave conditions and marine safety, of the harbour.

After over 16 years of study and research, a scheme has been developed which we believe could meet the overall needs of our community in the long term; that it satisfies the most stringent of engineering feasibility tests; and that it would not result in any unacceptable environmental impact on our harbour.

Transport Infrastructure

The fundamental question is of course the "need" for reclamation in Central. From what I heard this evening, there seems little debate over the justifications for the various key transport infrastructure. Many Members have indicated their support and agreed that the key transport infrastructure, including the Central-Wanchai By-pass, the MTR North Island Line and the Airport Overrun Tunnel, have to be located in Central to serve their specific functions. Our engineering studies have also confirmed that the only feasible and environmentally acceptable way to construct these facilities is through reclamation.

Not only are these transport infrastructure needed, they are needed urgently. The traffic congestion along the Gloucester-Harcourt-Connaught Corridor is deteriorating. With the opening of the Airport Railway and the commercial premises in Central Reclamation Phase I beginning to be occupied, the traffic congestion in Central would no longer be confined to a rush-hour phenomenon. The Airport Overrun Tunnel is also urgently required by the middle of the next decade to enable the Airport Railway to operate to its full capacity and meet safety standards.

Open Space

When we talk about the harbour as a public asset, it does not make much sense if most of the people of Hong Kong for most of the time could not have convenient access to it or enjoy it. The existing waterfront north of the Hong Kong Island has for many years been occupied by developments and waterfront facilities that restrict, if not totally deprive, us of access. One of the things the Central and Wanchai reclamation can achieve is, therefore, to give the harbour back to the people of Hong Kong.

The proposed reclamation project would provide the opportunity for us to develop an inter-connected and well-designed waterfront promenade from Central to Causeway Bay. Taking a stroll along the seaside or enjoying a cup of coffee at an open air cafe fronting a scenic harbour will no longer be a foreign experience. The proposed 26 ha of open space would meet the existing short fall for this facility and serve as a "lung" to the large working population in Central, Wanchai and Causeway Bay who have hitherto been bounded within the dense concrete forest. Watching fireworks in the harbour would be a much more leisurely event, as it should always be. We would also have a proper and respectable place for holding large scale festive functions. The harbour front park can become "the" landmark for which Hong Kong will be remembered.

The Australians are proud of their Darling Harbour and Americans their Boston or Miami Harbour. Hong Kong is gifted with the Victoria Harbour and we deserve no less. The question is whether we have the vision to make the best out of it.

Commercial Land

The recent Asian financial crisis has undoubtedly rung a timely alarm for those of us who, through no faults of our own, have enjoyed a 35-year unbroken record of economic growth without noticing it. But long before this crisis, it was already clear that our competitive edge was slowly slipping.

Looking ahead, for Hong Kong to stay in the global league of financial and services centres, we have to have a strong Central Business District (CBD). Our independent consultancy studies show that by 2016, there would be a demand for over 19 million m2 of commercial office floor space. Taking into account the existing and known future supply of commercial land, there would still be a short-fall of 7.56 million m2 of commercial office floor space. From the urban planning point of view, we know it would be a mistake not to decentralize commercial activities. We have therefore made plans for developing secondary business nodes along railway lines and trunk roads, which we hope could meet roughly about three-quarters of this estimated shortfall. The growth of the existing CBD through redevelopment could possibly meet roughly two-thirds of the remaining demand. But despite all these, our studies show clearly that there would be a considerable outstanding demand in the order 700,000 million m2 of prime office space by 2016, which is equivalent to a demand for 10.23 ha. of new commercial land. This is already over and above the 8.9 ha of commercial land we are proposing in our proposed Central Reclamation. We could of course debate over the validity of these figures or their assumption but that would not be very fruitful. The important point is that we are looking far beyond just the quantitative supply of competitively priced prime commercial premises.

To stay ahead of the global competition, "quality" is the key. We do not only need high quality intelligent commercial buildings, we need to have them in a well-designed "Office Park" setting right at the heart of the CBD. The ideal business environment that could continue to attract big international corporations to choose Hong Kong as home to their regional base in the next century is something neither our existing CBD, nor any of our future secondary business modes outside the CBD, can offer. While not many Members in this Chamber appreciate this, almost all of our competitors in the region do. Within the limits of their resources available, countries in the region have been striving to create the best possible business environment to lure investors. We may still be competitive today but unless we have the vision to take great strides on the basis of our solid foundation, we may one day have to live up to the reality that we may be only the second best.

The proposed Central Reclamation offers an ideal opportunity for an organic expansion of our existing CBD. This opportunity, once missed, would have extremely far-reaching implications for Hong Kong's competitiveness in future.

There have also been allegations that the Government are exploiting the harbour as a money-spinner. This is grossly untrue. Had this been the case, we would not have planned only 8.9 ha. of commercial land, which is less than 24% of the Central Reclamation or 15% of the entire Central and Wanchai Reclamation. Similarly, stringent height and plot ratio restrictions would not have been imposed on every single commercial sites on the proposed reclamation, which would sacrifice at least one-third of the development potential of the sites. We can't be doing this for money. We do so for ensuring that we would have a high quality environment at the waterfront with well-designed commercial buildings blended comfortably into the waterfront park. There should, therefore, be no worry that our shoreline would be lined by a wall of glass-walled sky-scrapers or the ridge-line of our Peak be compromised, as some alternative schemes would likely result.

Wave

There is a particular point about wave conditions in the harbour raised by many Members which I felt I should respond. Many Members have assumed that reclamation is the culprit for wave agitation. This has been proved to be totally unfounded by a study conducted jointly by the Civil Engineering Department and the University of Hong Kong in 1996 entitled The Study of Inner Harbour Waves and their Reduction- Cumulative Wave Impact from Planned Harbour Reclamations". The study conducted an extensive survey investigation comprising wave data collection, mathematical model simulation and aerial photogrammetry for regional wave assessment. The Study confirmed that reclamation is not the main cause of wave agitation. The deteriorating wave condition within the harbour is mainly caused by the intensified marine activities and the drastic increase in the number of high-powered and fast moving plying vessels, most notably the high speed catamarans, tugboats and high speed monohull ferries.

The study found that using the 1996 wave conditions as a base case, the cumulative impact of all the planned harbour reclamations would not worsen in any significant way the wave condition of the harbour. According to the study, the worst hit area would be the sea near Sai Ying Pun and Sheung Wan, through which most high-speed vessels enter and exit the harbour. By 2001, the average wave height in this area would reach between 0.6 m and 0.9 m. The Study confirmed that to proceed with the proposed reclamation projects or otherwise would not change this situation.

On the contrary, reclamation could in some way help mitigate wave conditions in the harbour. Reclamation provides an opportunity for reprovisioning existing seawall, over 90% of which do not have any wave-absorbing design. As part of the study, the HKU has designed a new energy-absorbing seawall which could absorb about 50% of the wave energy along the seawall. Wave conditions along the coast would therefore be greatly improved.

The study also suggested that planned reclamation outside the inner harbour may divert part of the heavy marine traffic outside the inner harbour which would accordingly reduce waves in the central harbour.

Scale

Many Members have argued for the "minimum" approach. Some seem to be suggesting that the scale of reclamation can be trimmed at will at the stroke of a pen. I appreciate that Members say so because they are not aware of the engineering complexity of the project and the associated environmental constraints. Our proposed scale of reclamation is the integral results of many extensive land use, urban design, engineering and environmental studies. Apart from meeting all the identified needs of Hong Kong mentioned earlier, there is also an engineering requirement associated with our proposed scale of reclamation.

Reclamation is not simply filling up the body of water with earth. We have many existing waterfront facilities, e.g. the Star Ferry Pier, the Queen's Pier, the helipad, the many underground water pumping stations, drainages, sewerages, etc., which have to be reprovisioned first before reclamation can take place; and we need land for that. The proposed engineering solution is to build two small islands in the harbour, which would eventually form the future shoreline, for reprovisioning all these essential facilities. And in the course of doing that, we have to maintain a water channel of a minimum width of 150 m from the existing shoreline to allow sufficient water flow and discharge so that the water quality within the harbour will be maintained at an acceptable level throughout the reclamation. These constraints, to a certain extent, set the limits of the scale of reclamation. The proposed transport infrastructure, which will be submerged underground, will also need extra land for route protection. The whole process is extremely complicated and every step must be meticulously worked out to ensure that the reclamation would not cause any unnecessary adverse impact on the harbour and inconvenience to the public.

Some would argue that there can't be just one engineering solution. There are indeed many. But the one we are proposing is the result of careful research and studies. It is the same method we have tested and adopted in Central Reclamation Phase I. It is therefore not only viable but is also a well-proven way of meeting all stringent environmental requirements.

It would of course be a fairly simple matter to propose alternative schemes by scrippling new shorelines on a map, as many critics would have us believe. So far, I have yet to see one single alternative scheme that is substantiated by research or study of an extent anywhere near to what the Government has done. Members do not appear to accept the Government's proposal for granted. I am surprised that they would eagerly accept other alternative proposals for granted, even when none of these proposals has been fully examined and substantiated. I will be the last to see our harbour being subject to any unnecessary risk and adverse impact. The Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance imposes stringent legal requirements on the entire reclamation process, failing which no matter how minimal, a reclamation scheme could not proceed. Our proposed scale of reclamation in Central has been subject to a vigorous environmental impact assessment process and fully meets the requirements of its recommendations.

The motion of today's debate suggests that our proposed reclamation is "grossly excessive". I would not wish to be drawn into a petty debate over rhetorics. I can only assure Members that the Government has gone out of its ways to take a most careful examination of various options before making the proposal which will meet the needs of Hong Kong in the long term, be completed in time to solve transport problems and satisfy both environmental and engineering requirements. Our existing shore-line at the basin between Star Ferry and the Hong Kong Exhibition and Convention Centre Extension would only be pushed outward into the sea by 86 m to 218 m, and even the farthest point would still be some 200m short of the Exhibition and Convention Centre Extension into the harbour.

Reclamation has never been an easy decision for the Government to make nor for the people of Hong Kong to accept. We have learnt from mistakes we made in our past incremental way of conducting reclamations. We have also learnt that an expediently designed piece of infrastructure could give rise to problems that haunt us for years. Precisely because the harbour is valuable to us, our consideration must be comprehensive, our studies thorough and our analysis rational. We would also need to have vision to perceive what is best for Hong Kong on the whole and not just to satisfy particular sectoral interests.

Madam President, let me end by saying this. The proposed Central Reclamation remains a proposal. No doubt the views and sentiments expressed by Members will be fully taken into account by the Administration. As many Members have urged, we can indeed take back the proposal, conduct a few more studies and revert with another proposal. And this Council could then have another equally lively debate. But the important point is that there is a real urgency attached to this project which I hope Members could appreciate. It would be equally important that we should look at the proposal objectively, in the light of the benefits it will bring to Hong Kong, both in the long and short term.

Madam President, the Central Reclamation will be the last reclamation project in Central. We now have the opportunity for us to give a new life to the Central part of Victoria Harbour after it has ceased to be a port. I urge Members to have the vision and courage to vote for what is best for Hong Kong.

Thank you.

End/Wednesday, July 29, 1998

NNNN