Agenda Item 1 : Confirmation of Minutes of the 73rd Meeting
held on 17 April 2000 and Minutes of the 74th Meeting held on
29 May 2000
The Chairman said that a Member, who was out of town
when the Council had the last meeting, had proposed an amendment
to the minutes of the 73rd meeting. The proposed amendment was
set out in the post-meeting note under para 3. |
Action |
2. The Chairman suggested that if Members had no objection,
the proposed amendment be accepted and the minutes of the 73rd
meeting be re-confirmed. Members agreed. |
|
3. The Chairman informed Members that no proposed amendment
to the draft minutes of the 74th meeting was received. The draft
minutes were confirmed. |
|
Agenda Item 2 : Matters Arising
Para. 5 : Planning of Lantau Island
4. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had passed
a copy of ACE Paper 12/2000 entitled "Planning of Lantau Island"
to that Member. |
|
Para. 10 : Briefing by Fill Management Committee
5. The Chairman informed Members that since April 2000,
the Fill Management Committee had been re-organised into the
Marine Fill Committee and the Public Fill Committee, each responsible
for different areas of work. Having regard to Members' general
concern on fill management matters, the Secretariat had extended
an invitation to the two committees to brief Members on the
management of fill resources and dredged/excavated sediment
disposal. The date of the briefing(s) would be finalized upon
receipt of their replies. |
Secretariat |
Para.32 : Copy of FC and PWSC papers to Members
6. Members noted that the Secretariat had started sending copies
of FC and PWSC papers to Members for information. For Members
with e-mail accounts, papers would be sent through e-mail. For
those without e-mail accounts, hard copies would be delivered
to them. |
|
Para 67 : HK-BEAM - An Environmental Assessment for New Residential
Buildings
7. The Chairman said that at the last meeting, it was
agreed that the item should be brought forward for discussion
at this meeting. Unfortunately, both the Chairman of the HK-BEAM
Steering Committee and the Assessor were unable to attend this
meeting as well as the next meeting in July to present the paper.
The Secretariat would arrange for the item to be discussed at
the meeting in August. |
|
Para. 73 : Opening ACE meetings to the public
8. ACE Paper 22/2000 would be discussed under agenda item 3.
Para. 74 : Petition letters from a group of Lantau bodies
9. Members noted that the letters were re-circulated to them
on 7 June 2000.
Agenda Item 3 : Opening ACE to the public
(ACE Paper 22/2000) |
|
10. A Member said that he did not feel strongly either
way. The current practice of uploading minutes of meetings on
the Internet was already a move to enhance transparency of the
Council. While he supported greater transparency, he was worried
that discussion at Council meetings might become politicized.
|
|
11. A Member said that there was growing pressure for
greater accountability and transparency of Government. Any arguments
against opening Council meetings to the public should be carefully
considered. |
|
12. A Member said that he had no strong views on opening
Council meetings to the public. However, he was concerned about
opening EIA Subcommittee meetings to the public. He preferred
maintaining the status quo for the Subcommittee because that
would allow more room for negotiation and mediation. |
|
13. A Member suggested that since the Country and Marine
Parks Board only opened its full Board meetings to the public,
but not the meetings of the committees under it, the same could
apply to ACE and the EIA Sub-committee. |
|
14. The Chairman said that since the EIA Sub-committee
did not make any decisions in respect of EIA reports, it was
not necessary for it to open its meetings to the public. Members
agreed. |
|
15. The Chairman further suggested that for greater accountability,
the Council could produce an annual report at the end of the
year and that a meet-the-press session could be arranged for
the Chairman to answer any questions the media would have. |
|
16. SEF said that with the setting up of the Council
on Sustainable Development, likely before the end of the year,
ACE's terms of reference might need to be reviewed to see how
the two councils would complement each other. It might be prudent
to await such development before making a decision on opening
ACE meetings to the public. That said, she did not have any
strong views on the issue. Her only concern was that Members
should continue to express their views freely at meetings. As
regards the proposed annual report, since the Chairman already
conducted press briefings after each Council meeting, the contents
of any such report might not be of sufficient interest to the
media. |
|
17. A Member said that the question of whether Council
meetings should be open to the public had been discussed several
times before. Members were fully aware of all considerations.
He suggested that Members vote on the issue. Another Member
supported the suggestion. |
|
18. A Member said that in principle she supported opening
Council meetings to the public. However, since the Council on
Sustainable Development would be set up soon, she felt it would
be preferable to defer the decision to next year. |
|
19. A Member said that in view of the short duration
of the remaining term of Members' office, it might not be appropriate
to make any change at the moment. He suggested deferring the
decision to early next year for new Members of the Council to
make a decision. The Chairman and other Members agreed
to the proposal.
|
|
Agenda
Item 4 : The Report of the 54th EIA Subcommittee Meeting
(ACE Paper 23/2000)
Tai O Sheltered Boat Anchorage
20. The EIA Subcommittee Chairman briefed Members on
the EIA findings as well as the views and recommendations of
Subcommittee Members. Members endorsed the EIA report as recommended
by the Subcommittee. |
|
Widening of Tolo Highway/Fanling Highway between Island
House Interchange and Fanling
21. The EIA Subcommittee Chairman briefed Members on
the Subcommittee Members' views on the EIA findings. He said
that Members were concerned about the incremental approach of
the project proponent in dealing with highway projects. Two
years ago, the section of Tolo Highway south of Island House
was widened. Now the project involved the section north of Island
House. Members felt that such a fragmented approach would deprive
them the benefit of taking a comprehensive look at the overall
project. The EIA Subcommittee Chairman said that the
proponent's explanation was that at that time the need for the
present project did not exist. |
|
22. In reply to the Chairman, the EIA Subcommittee Chairman
said that the proponent had confirmed that there was no plan
to widen the section to the north of Fanling. Atg. DEP
commented that the inclusion in the current widening project
of substantial noise barriers along each side of the roadway
would limit the opportunity for further incremental widening.
|
|
23. In reply to a Member's enquiry, the EIA Subcommittee
Chairman said that the proponent had only proposed widening
the road to dual-3 lane. |
|
24. The EIA Subcommittee Chairman pointed out that Sub-committee
Members were also concerned about the absence of a long-term
transport strategy in Hong Kong. Without such a strategy, it
would be difficult for Members to comment on road projects.
The Chairman noted the views and agreed to forward them
to the Transport Bureau for consideration. Members endorsed
the project as recommended by the Subcommittee on the understanding
that there would be no further widening of the Tolo Highway
to the north of Fanling. |
Secretariat |
Quorum and Workload of EIA Subcommittee
25. The EIA Subcommittee Chairman said that the EIA Subcommittee's
attendance was sometimes thin and a Member raised the issue
of quorum at the last EIA Subcommittee meeting. A Member
commented that because of Members' heavy commitments, they might
not be able to attend all Subcommittee meetings. He was uneasy
about the fact that sometimes a decision was made by only half
of the Members and he therefore raised the issue of quorum for
discussion. Furthermore, the current practice for Subcommittee
Members to select projects for consideration also gave rise
to concern. Possibility would exist that they might have missed
some of the smaller but important projects. On membership, Prof
Hills said that existing Members joined the EIA Subcommittee
on a voluntary basis. Despite the fact that the existing membership
was quite balanced, the Administration, in reviewing the structure
of the Council and the Subcommittee, should ensure that a balance
of membership was maintained. |
|
26. The Chairman commented that given the number and
complexity of projects, the work of the EIA Subcommittee had
become very heavy. |
|
27. A Member said that some government committees like
the Town Planning Board would set up two subcommittees each
responsible for a specific area of work. Perhaps the Council
could consider devising a similar system. |
|
28. A Member pointed out that sometimes there was confusion
among Members about the role of the Subcommittee. In addition
to environmental issues, Members sometimes questioned the need
for the project. Very often that would make the issues under
discussion even more complicated. |
|
29. On the subject of improvements, a Member suggested
that the Technical Memorandum under the EIA Ordinance should
be reviewed. Another Member said that the review should also
cover the whole EIA mechanism to make it easier for Members
to contribute. |
|
30. Atg. DEP informed Members that the Technical Memorandum
was developed in 1998 as part of the subsidiary legislation
of the EIA Ordinance. The whole EIA mechanism was reviewed in
1999 after one year's operation. EPD was now in the process
of conducting a second review. Written comments from Members
on the EIA process including the Technical Memorandum would
be welcome. |
|
31. SEF said that she had discussed the work-load of
the Subcommittee with the EIA Subcommittee Chairman a few months
ago. Following the discussion, the Bureau sought legal advice
on the possibility of co-opting members to the Subcommittee.
The legal advice was that it was not legally proper to do so.
The reason was that the Subcommittee was created under the Council
to assist the Council in its work. As such, the Subcommittee
had no separate identity. Since the Council and the Subcommittee
were to discharge statutory functions in providing advice on
EIA reports, such functions could only be lawfully discharged
by members of the Council who were properly appointed to it.
That said, the Department of Justice saw no problem for the
Council to seek outside professional support should such a need
arise. SEF suggested that the Secretariat put forward
a number of options for addressing the work-load for Members'
consideration at the September meeting. |
Secretariat |
32. A Member suggested that the Subcommittee should participate
in the review process and offer comments on the existing EIA
mechanism. SEF agreed that the Secretariat should consult
and work together with the Subcommittee before submitting recommendations
for consideration. The EIA Subcommittee Chairman indicated
that he would conduct a session with Subcommittee Members with
a view to working out recommendations for the consideration
of the Council. |
|
KCRC Sheung Shui to Lok Ma Chau Spur Line
33. A Member informed other Members that he was unhappy
about a statement given by a staff of the KCRC at a press conference
on the Sheung Shui to Lok Ma Chau Spur Line. It was said that
if the Spur Line project could not proceed, the KCRC would consider
calling off the other two East Rail extension projects that
ran from Hung Hom to Tsim Sha Tsui and from Tai Wai to Ma On
Shan. He felt that such a statement was akin to intimidation
of the EIA Subcommittee. |
|
34. In response, the Chairman said that the Council would
not be intimidated by any organization. He suggested putting
the issue to the Transport Bureau. If the KCRC did make such
a statement, he was prepared to take the matter up at a very
high level or invite the Chairman of KCRC to the next Council
meeting for a discussion. |
|
35. A Member cautioned that what was reported in the
press might not be 100% correct. He suggested that the Council
should find out what was actually said before deciding on the
next course of action. |
|
36. A Member said that Members should not be unduly affected
by what the KCRC would say or do. The EIA Subcommittee should
focus its attention on the environmental considerations of the
project. That would make things easier for Members.
(Post-meeting note: Mr. James Blake, Senior Director
(Capital Projects) of KCRC, clarified at the EIA Subcommittee
meeting held on 27 June 2000 that the Sheung Shui to Lok Ma
Chau Spur Line was a stand alone project in itself and that
it would not affect the other two East Rail extension projects
in Tsim Sha Tsui and Ma On Shan.) |
|
Agenda Item 5 : The Second Railway Development Study (RDS
2)
(ACE Paper 24/2000)
37. The Chairman welcomed PAS/TB and the presentation
team to the meeting. PAS/TB then briefed Members on the
Railway Development Strategy 2000 followed by a presentation
by ED/ERM on related environmental considerations that would
have impacts on RDS 2. An example of the considerations mentioned
by ED/ERM was the ecological values of Long Valley, as a result
of which one of the alignments was refined. |
|
38. In response to the Chairman's enquiry, PAS/TB said
that there was no common yardstick for the comparison of road
and railways because their functions were not exactly the same
and their operation and financing were also different. Anyhow,
the Administration was moving towards the right direction in
providing more railways. At present, six railways were under
different stages of implementation and a further six were recommended
in the Strategy. |
|
39. In reply to a Member's question on the decrease of rail/MTR
commuters, PAS/TB said that to attract railway commuters,
the Administration would encourage more residential developments
along the railway lines and provide more feeder buses as far
as possible. |
|
40. Upon enquiry from the Chairman on the increasing competition
from estate buses, PAS/TB said that people should be
given freedom of choice. If they found it more comfortable and
efficient to travel by rail, they would gradually change to
this mode of transportation. Between 1998 and 2016, the number
of rail passengers would be expected to double whilst other
public transport passengers, including bus passengers, would
grow by 25% to 30%. According to their forecast, rail would
take up about 43% of passengers in terms of the number of boarding
and 60% in terms of passenger-kilometres. |
|
41. A Member commented that there should be a comprehensive
and integrated transport strategy. Unless there was control
on the growth of vehicles, the road and air pollution conditions
would not improve. In reply, PAS/TB said that Transport
Bureau was working on a comprehensive transport strategy and
would certainly look for ways to control the growth of cars
on a continuous basis. The present target was to control the
growth rate to below 2% to 3% per annum. He further said that
in terms of road per capita, Hong Kong was one of the lowest
in the world. |
|
42. Upon enquiry from the Chairman on the sustainability of
the growth of cars by 2% on a year on year basis, ED/ERM
said that continuous growth of car numbers was not sustainable
as far as the environment was concerned. However, it was difficult
to discourage car ownership in Hong Kong. |
|
43. A Member said that according to figures he had, private
cars in Hong Kong constituted only a small percentage in terms
of mileage travelled. In view of the cost of car ownership in
Hong Kong, the current trend was to travel on mass transit.
|
|
44. A Member supported RDS 2. He favoured support even
for less viable rail projects. He considered that cargo trucks
should be discouraged from using major roads and that the Railway
Development Strategy 2000 should be implemented as far as possible.
|
|
45. A Member pointed out that cargo traffic across the
border was extremely heavy. He asked when would a plan be developed
for a heavy rail for cargo. In reply, PAS/TB said that
a heavy rail for cargo would only be financially viable if the
goods were to be carried over a long distance. |
|
46. To gauge the performance of RDS 2, a Member requested the
project proponent to provide the following information-
- the
total length of existing railways in Hong Kong;
- the
number of passenger-kilometres travelling in existing railways;
- the
percentage of the above in relation to the total passenger-kilometres
of roads and railways in Hong Kong;
- the
total length of railways planned under RDS 2;
- the
number of passenger-kilometres forecast to travel in planned
RDS 2 railways; and
- the
percentage of (d) and (e) above in relation to the total
passenger-kilometres of planned roads and railways in Hong
Kong.
PAS/TB agreed to provide the information as soon as possible.
|
Transport Bureau |
47. SEF referred to the population projection of 8.9
million adopted in RDS 2 and asked whether that had taken into
account a recent survey which indicated that about one million
Hong Kong people would move and live in Shenzhen. In response,
PAS/TB said that the population projection was taken
from the medium growth planning scenario provided by Planning
Department. The Department had revised the population distribution
to take into account more people living in northeast and north
west of the New Territories but the overall population estimate
remained unchanged. The survey forecast that one million people
would live in Shenzhen explained the need for the Regional Express
Line. |
|
48. The Chairman asked whether it would be possible to
connect the Airport with the Pearl River Delta. If so, that
would make Chek Lap Kok the real aviation hub of Asia. He also
queried the need to have two railway companies each with different
standards. He also appealed that all the passenger railways
planned under RDS 2 should adopt the same mode so as to provide
greater convenience for passengers to change routes.
PAS/TB noted his views. |
|
49. SEF referred to the guiding principle that there
should be improved co-ordination between Government departments
and asked how it would be implemented. PAS/TB explained
that in planning strategic growth areas, there was constant
dialogue between Lands Department, Planning Department and Transport
Department so that the residential areas would be as near to
the railway stations and transport interchanges as possible.
|
|
50. In response to a Member, Director/MVA agreed that
the Port Rail Line was important in expanding Hong Kong's competitiveness
in carrying freight across the border. He and PAS/TB confirmed
that both the East Rail and the West Rail would have capacity
to support the Port Rail Line in carrying cross border freight
since freight could be conveyed during non-peak hours. |
|
51. A Member commented that the EIA Subcommittee had
earlier considered the Route 7 project which appeared to be
quite controversial. He asked why the South Island Line was
included in the Long Term Strategy Scheme but not the RDS 2.
In response, PAS/TB said that the project was not included
in RDS 2 because the estimated small passenger flow did not
justify a heavy rail in that area in the time frame covered
under RDS 2. Furthermore, the construction of the South Island
Line could not replace Route 7 altogether. Upon request from
the Chairman, he undertook to prepare a paper on the comparison
between Route 7 and the South Island Line for Members' consideration.
|
Transport Bureau |
52. Upon request from a Member, PAS/TB agreed to provide
the planning parameters adopted in the RDS 2 in respect of the
border traffic to Shenzhen. |
Transport Bureau |
53. In reply to the Chairman, PAS/TB confirmed that Transport
Bureau had already consulted the LegCo Panel on Transport on
RDS 2 and the Railway Development Strategy 2000. |
|
54. A Member said that the Conservancy Association fully
supported RDS 2 and welcomed the Strategic Environmental Assessment
(SEA). By having a SEA, future developments could avoid impact
on environmentally sensitive areas. He was pleased to see that
the report recognized the ecological value of Long Valley and
that arrangements were in place to rezone the area to a classification
of "other specified uses (nature park)". Finally, he asked whether
any railways planned under RDS 2 would cut into Long Valley.
In reply, ED/ERM said that while he could not comment
on the existing Spur Line project, the alignment of the Northern
Links freight connection in the RDS 2 Report avoided cutting
into Long Valley but that would have to be looked into in greater
detail in the feasibility study stage. |
|
55. A Member commented that the SEA of RDS 2 was not
the first report that recognized the ecological value of Long
Valley. The river drainage project as well as the Fanling By-pass
project had come to the same conclusion. The alignment of the
Fanling By-pass was even revised to avoid Long Valley. He was
puzzled as to why the project proponent of the Spur Line project
had adopted a different view. |
|
56. In response, ED/ERM said that RDS 2was undertaken
on the basis of existing and committed projects including the
Spur Line. PAS/TB supplemented that as far as traffic and passenger
forecasts were concerned, RDS 2 was planned on the assumption
that the committed projects would go ahead. Whether the Spur
Line would proceed in its currently proposed alignment or a
different alignment would not affect RDS 2. RDS 2 assumed that
Long Valley should be avoided as far as possible in view of
its ecological importance for the new railway lines.
57. A Member enquired whether, in undertaking the study, RDS
2 had adopted any baseline regarding the ecological value of
Long Valley. In reply, ED/ERM said that they had to go
by the direction given in the Recommended Outline Development
Plan which was being revised to rezone the Long Valley area
to a classification of "other specified uses (nature park)"
and they had taken that on board in RDS 2. |
|
58. The Chairman thanked PAS/TB and his team in conducting
a very informative briefing. |
|
Control of vehicle number
59. SEF took the opportunity to inform Members that an
Inter-department Task Force had been set up to tackle air pollution.
An issue that the Task Force would consider was vehicle growth.
To facilitate consideration, EPD would provide forecast
figures on how the growth in vehicle number would affect the
target in improving air quality. In the final analysis, the
community would need to make a decision on whether the growth
of private cars should be controlled. |
|
Agenda Item 6 : Any Other BusinessTentative Schedule of
Work for ACE in 2000
60. Members noted the tentative schedule of work. |
|
Bio-diversity survey
61. The Chairman said he received a letter from Professor
David Dudgeon and Dr. Richard Corlett about a bio-diversity
survey, enclosing a copy of their recommendations. He hoped
that AFCD would consider the recommendations and come up with
a plan in due course. |
AFCD |
Task Force on the Use and Conservation of the Countryside
62. A Member noted that last year, the Task Force on
the Use and Conservation of the Countryside had come up with
some recommendations and he asked about the present position.
SEF said that the recommendations were being considered
with a view to producing a consultation document on conservation.
Site Visit to the Sheung Shui to Lok Ma Chau Spur Line
63. The Chairman invited more Members to join the site
visit arranged by KCRC so they would have a better understanding
about the Spur Line project. In response to Members' request,
the Chairman agreed that the Secretariat would find out
from Members how many of them could not join the visit on 8
July but would like to have a second visit on another day.
(Post-meeting note: KCRC had agreed to arrange another visit
on 6 July 2000. Members had been informed of this arrangement.)
|
|
Agenda Item 7 : Date of Next ACE Meeting
64. The Chairman informed Members that the next Council
meeting was advanced from 31 July to 17 July to ensure that
more Members would be available to discuss the Spur Line project.
|
Environment and Food Bureau
July 2000 |
|
|