Press Releases and Statements

Speech by Mrs Carrie Lam, Permanent Secretary (Planning &Lands)at Joint Chamber Luncheon Meeting (English only)

Our Harbour - Past, Present and Future

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to share the platform with Christine and Paul to talk about our Harbour.

I have chosen to talk about the past, present and future of the Harbour. This is because with over one year of litigations on the Harbour, the public debate has tended to be a matter of justice versus evil, pro-reclamation versus anti-reclamation, black versus white, and finally, good guys versus bad guys. In reality, Hong Kong underwent rapid changes in pace of the social and economic development. At every stage, the community has different needs and people have different aspirations. What is important is for a solid public consensus underpinning those needs or aspirations to be built at every stage so that we may channel our energy in the right direction and avoid unnecessary confrontation.

Looking back into history, when we were children, our textbooks taught us how leveling of hills and reclaiming from the Harbour had contributed to Hong Kong's proud record of development, transforming itself from a fishing village into an international financial centre. Undeniably, reclamation used to be a main source of land supply to meet the ever-growing housing, infrastructure and economic needs. Most of our Central Business District and many of our essential infrastructure, like roads and rails, convention and exhibition facilities, hotels and commercial offices, were built on reclaimed land.

But people's aspirations change over time. Victoria Harbour is our special public asset. In recent years, there have been community concerns over further reclamation and strong calls for the Harbour to be protected. This has led to the enactment of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance. Although this went into our law books through an admirable private initiative in 1997, it would not be entirely fair to say that the Government had only unwillingly swallowed the law without demonstrating any sincerity in recognizing its importance. To name a few, the Government took the initiative in 1999 to amend the Ordinance to extend its coverage from the Central Harbour to the entire Victoria Harbour, the Town Planning Board has set out a Vision Statement for the Harbour in 1999 and as part of the Metroplan, the Government commissioned a Planning Study on the Harbour and its Waterfront Areas, which was completed early last year. As a result, some proposed reclamations such as those in Kowloon Point and Tsim Sha Tsui were dropped some years ago.

In recent months, more proposed reclamations have been removed from our Outline Zoning Plans. They include the ones at Tsuen Wan Bay, off Green Island on Hong Kong Island West and even two piers yet to be reclaimed on West Kowloon. A private reclamation in Yau Tong Bay has been referred back to the Town Planning Board for reconsideration. A public pledge has been made repeatedly that apart from the current Central Reclamation Phase III and the Wan Chai North and Southeast Kowloon, there will be no more reclamation within the Harbour in future.

At this juncture, some will no doubt query why the Government could not give an even firmer and more determined commitment to immediately stop all reclamations including these final three. Let me first explain the situation of Wan Chai North and Southeast Kowloon before spending a few minutes on the CRIII.

As the honourable Judges have recognized in hearing the several harbour cases, planning exercise invariably takes time and what constitutes a "present need" that can meet the CFA's "overriding public need" test include a need that would arise within a definite planning horizon. Seen against the planning framework, the Wan Chai North proposal is the final phase of the Central and Wan Chai Reclamations started in the early 1990s that saw the completion of the Airport Railway, the International Financial Centres and the Convention Centre Extension. The Wan Chai North proposal will provide not only the final piece of jigsaw but the much needed Central - Wan Chai Bypass which I shall come to in a moment. On the other side of the Harbour, planning studies on Southeast Kowloon have been going on since 1995, before the relocation of the Airport. The future of the runway and the Kai Tak Nullah are really unfinished city planning business that we could not shy away from just by proclaiming no more reclamation. Moreover, they are not new reclamation proposals per se. Very extensive public consultations had been undertaken particularly on the Southeast Kowloon with aspirations for some public needs, such as a cruise terminal, being recognized. It is therefore only responsible for the Government to start another comprehensive review and we will ensure that any proposed reclamation will meet the stringent CFA test.

As for Central Reclamation Phase III, the 18 hectares are needed to meet essential transport infrastructure. To many of you, growing traffic congestion in Central and along the Connaught Road Central/Harbour Road/Gloucester Road Corridor should be obvious. And the situation is definitely going to get worse before the completion of the dual-two surface roads connecting CRI and Wan Chai North and the Central - Wan Chai Bypass. Much has been said or not said about CRIII and just allow me to clear a few misconceptions -

We are not over-providing the area with two 6-lane roads. The Bypass is a dual-3 carriageway built underground to take traffic away from Central and Wan Chai while the surface roads to be built on land reclaimed for the Bypass is a dual-2 road to relieve congestion within Central. They serve different purposes and are required to be available at different timeframe. Indeed, the Bypass has been regarded as more than just another road : it completes what is a "missing link" in Hong Kong's strategic road network.
We are not over-reclaiming land which is not needed to accommodate the essential infrastructure and those affected waterfront facilities that require reprovisioning. The alignment of the Bypass is subject to many constraints and the operation of existing services for water cooling to existing buildings and ferry services must not be disrupted. Engineering feasibility studies have confirmed that there are no reasonable alternatives to reclamation to meet these needs.
We are certainly not over-reclaiming to provide commercial land for sale. Extent of reclamation and future land use are two different matters in the present case and the land use proposals now reflected in the approved OZP were drawn up by the Town Planning Board after extensive consultations. The minimum option of reclaiming 18 hectares is justified on engineering grounds given the many constraints; with or without any reclaimed land zoned "commercial", the 18 hectares will still be 18 hectares. Limited land zoned "commercial" comprises 2.6 hectares for waterfront leisure use and another 2.5 hectares as part of a CDA adjoining existing land including the General Post Office. While the waterfront leisure usage is to achieve the vision of a vibrant waterfront promenade, the CDA with pedestrian deck will help improve accessibility to the waterfront while ensuring some developments compatible with the Central Business District. They are subject to stringent height controls. There is no worry of these becoming high rise high density development.
We are not paying lip service to creating an accessible waterfront for the enjoyment of the community. Half of the reclaimed land totaling 9 hectares in the heart of Central are zoned for open space use, including a prominent waterfront promenade with enough room for activities, and good pedestrian access will be assured through the detailed design.
We are not building more roads when there are other alternatives to relieving traffic congestion such as ERP. The Bypass is a strategic link that is currently missing. ERP is not a substitute. On the contrary, the provision of the Bypass as an alternative route would help make ERP into Central feasible.

With a lawful OZP not disputed by the Court, a properly authorized and funded project following five years of extensive discussion, a minimum area of reclamation and reviews supported by independent experts, good administration requires us to seek to avoid further delays. We are therefore continuing with CRIII. I hope the community will understand.

Nothing is more excited than talking about the future, particularly when this is going to mark the beginning of joint efforts by the community and the Government to create a vibrant harbour-front for the enjoyment of local residents.

The public has expressed in clear and loud terms their aspiration for the Harbour and seeks active participation in the process of turning their aspiration into reality. To this end, the Government has announced the setting up of the Harbour-front Enhancement Committee (HEC) which will have a broad-based representation.

The Committee's objectives are in line with the Vision Statement for the Harbour promulgated by the TPB, namely to improve accessibility, utilization and vibrancy of the harbour-front areas, and safeguarding public enjoyment of the Harbour through a balanced, effective and public participation approach. The Committee will no doubt take reference from overseas and local experience in going about its work. While many people are talking about Darling Harbour's appeal, there are good local examples for us to prove the attractiveness of a vibrant waterfront. Go visit the Sai Kung Waterfront and watch the Tsim Sha Tsui beautification project about to start.

The Committee will also provide timely input to the two reviews on Wan Chai North and Southeast Kowloon. We expect such consultations to start as early as possible and in any case, conceptual plans for the two developments should be available before end of the year. The Committee's ambit also covers land use and planning of existing waterfront and the Kennedy Town waterfront will be a good case to give very serious consideration.

I am aware that there has been some debate on an alternative institutional framework for the planning of the Harbour and references have been made to a statutory Harbour Authority. While more discussion on the institutional issues would be addressed in another Harbour Conference to be held some two weeks from now, such alternatives should perhaps be viewed against the particular needs and administrative contexts of individual places. In the Hong Kong context, with good record of co-ordination amongst the bureaux and implementation departments in delivering infrastructure developments or policy objectives in a timely manner, we need to be very cautious on creating duplication of work involving time, cost and delays by opting for a single statutory authority.

No matter what institutional framework exists to achieve our vision for the Harbour, there is room for greater public participation in the process. Specifically, the Harbour-front Enhancement Committee is tasked to enlist greater public involvement in the planning and design of the harbour-front areas. I am sure the Committee will welcome strong input from this particular initiative on Designing the Hong Kong Harbour District.

With a common vision and a trustful relationship, let us enhance the Harbour as a unique attraction for the enjoyment of the community. Thank you.