20. The Chairman asked the Secretariat
to circulate a reply slip for Members to sign up as Subcommittee
Members and requested the Subcommittee to set up its house
rules and report to the Council at the next meeting.
21. The EIA Subcommittee Chairman informed
Members that the Subcommittee would meet tentatively on 10
March 2001 to discuss the house rules and other matters. The
details of the meeting would be circulated to Subcommittee
Members in due course.
(Post-meeting Note : The first Subcommittee
meeting was postponed to 19 March 2001.)
Allocation for Overseas Visits in 2001-02
22. The Chairman thanked EFB for allocating
HK$200,000 for Council Members to undertake overseas visit
in 2001-02. He said that ACE treasured the opportunity to
learn from overseas experience. Overseas visits would also
allow Members to get to know each other better and interact
outside the rather formal Council meetings.
23. SEF said that the allocation was
made available by reducing provisions designated for the Bureau's
duty visits in 2001-02. The allocation, if unspent, could
not be carried forward to the next financial year. The Bureau
would not be able to make the same provision every year. SEF
further said that the proposed visit to Europe was only a
suggestion for Members' consideration. Members should determine
for themselves how best they could make use of the allocation
to carry out visits related to the Council's work.
24. The Chairman suggested visiting
Oslo and Paris in summer where compact BAF sewage treatment
facilities were adopted. On future allocation, he said that
Members were prepared to pay for their own expenses in the
future if such visits proved to be beneficial.
Agenda Item 4 : Lantau North-South Road
Access
(ACE Paper 2/2001)
25. The Chairman alerted Members of
a Member's concern that an early discussion of the subject
in the Council might pre-empt a fair deliberation of the EIA
report to be submitted to the Council in due course. He therefore
requested Members not to indicate any definitive approval
of the alignment at the meeting.
26. The Chairman welcomed PAS(T)5/TB,
DPM(MW)/HyD), CE(MW)/HyD, SE(MW)/HyD, AD(CMP)/AFCD, PEPO/EPD
and CE(NTW)/TD to the meeting. PAS(T)5/TB explained
that since the Administration previously consulted the Council
on the proposal of a road link between Mui Wo and Tai Ho Wan,
they felt obliged to seek Members' views on the revised proposal
of widening Tung Chung Road as a link between north and south
Lantau. PAS(T)5/TB emphasized that the discussion would
not pre-empt future statutory procedures of the project. DPM(MW)/HyD
then presented the new proposal.
27. Noting that a considerable portion of
the southern part of the new road would come off the existing
Tung Chung Road, a Member asked if the project should
be called a re-alignment rather than a road widening project.
Secondly, that Member asked whether there were ways
to minimize slope cutting and landfilling, for example, by
building a bridge or a tunnel as in some European countries.
In response, DPM(MW)/HyD said that it was difficult
to provide a safe gradient by widening the middle and southern
sections of the existing Tung Chung Road on-line and thus
an off-line alignment had to be adopted. He would give thought
to the naming of the project as proposed by Mr. Ho. As regards
minimizing the cutting and filling of land, DPM(MW)/HyD
said that consideration would be given in the detailed design
stage.
28. A Member was worried that this
project could encourage future development in south Lantau
and would induce further expansion of the road. Another
Member shared that Member's concern and said that if the
purpose of the re-alignment was to alleviate traffic safety
problem, the project proponent should analyze the causes of
the problem and lay out how the re-alignment could prevent
traffic accidents.
29. PAS(T)5/TB assured Members that
the Government had planned to preserve south Lantau for conservation
and recreation purposes. There was no intention to open up
south Lantau for large-scale developments. The Government
would control traffic flow of the road by restricting access
to residents of Lantau Island only.
30. A Member referred to the previous
Member's comment and asked whether the proponent had analyzed
the data on accidents. PAS(T)5/TB replied that the
single lane Tung Chung Road was being used for two-way traffic
at a capacity of 120 vehicles/hour during daytime. Most of
the accidents in the past 12 months involved vehicle damage.
The number of accidents involving injuries increased from
4 in 1998 to 9 in 2000 and the number of casualties involved
from 5 to 37 over the same period. She said that those figures
and a full analysis would be included in the EIA report.
31. A Member pointed out that the re-alignment
would attract more people to live in village houses/villas
in south Lantau and they would obtain road permit after becoming
residents, thereby increasing traffic flow and inducing more
pressure for the Government to build a wider road or more
roads in Lantau. Another Member concurred with that
Member and was concerned that the re-alignment was an encouragement
in disguise for more development in south Lantau. The Chairman
asked the Administration to take note of Members' concerns
and that these points would be addressed in the EIA report.
32. A Member said that if the proposed
alignment was to be pursued, he would like to see the following
included in the EIA report :
- traffic
control management;
- plans
and actions to preserve organisms in the streams near the
alignment;
- to
avoid impacts on landscape and other aspects, other means
to construct the road apart from cutting slopes; and
- mitigation
measures and post-construction management of the compensated
measures.
33. A
Member would like to see the methodology and findings
of a detailed ecological impact assessment of the re-alignment.
34. A
Member said that the estimated traffic flow arising from
the Disney theme park and the Ngong Ping-Tung Chung Cable
Car should be taken into account in the EIA study. He also
requested the proponent to set out whether they would carry
out compensation or other conservation measures on the existing
Tung Chung Road after the commissioning of the new road.
35. In
response to a Member's inquiry, the Chairman said that
according to the information given by the Planning Department
last year, there would not be any dramatic development in
Lantau.
36. The
Chairman said that the Council would not make any decision
on the proposed alignment at the present meeting. In response
to the Chairman's questions, DPM(MW)/HyD said that
consultants would be appointed as soon as possible and that
the EIA report would be ready in early 2002.
37. In
reply to SEF, the Chairman said that the Council visited
Tung Chung Road two years ago. If Members were interested
in paying another visit, they should inform the Secretariat
which would make the necessary arrangements.
Agenda
Item 5 : Proposed Cable Car System Between Tung Chung and
Ngong Ping
(ACE Paper 3/2001)
38. The
Chairman welcomed AC/Tourism, CE(Islands)/TDD and
SE/TDD to the Meeting. AC/Tourism gave a brief introduction,
followed by a presentation by SE/TDD.
39. A
Member was concerned that there would be considerable
environmental impacts during the construction phase. He urged
the Administration to give favourable consideration to the
bidder who would propose the least destructive construction
method. CE(Islands)/TDD said that the Government would
take this into account. He added that the experience in Australia
showed that construction of similar facilities could be carried
out by helicopters.
40. Following
his last comment, a Member asked whether access road
would be built along the cable car route for future maintenance.
CE(Islands)/TDD said that a footpath about four feet
wide was all that would be needed for maintenance. SE/TDD
supplemented that there was an existing footpath within the
Country Park along the Preliminary Preferred Alignment (PPA).
41. A
Member said that one of the proponents of the Airport
Core Programme Projects was supposed to set up a station on
the hill by helicopter but eventually adopted an environmental-destructive
way without the knowledge of EPD and the Council. He hoped
that the Administration would take serious action against
contractors who committed to environmentally friendly construction
methods and failed to fulfill those commitments. He then asked
why the PPA was favoured and said that comparisons between
different alignments considered should be presented in the
EIA report.
42. In
response, SE/TDD said that a number of factors had
been taken into account when drawing up the alignment, such
as flight path of helicopters, Sites of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSIs), proximity to the fuel tank farm on the Airport
Island, visual impacts of Tung Chung Town Development Phase
III as well as Fung Shui. He said that the PPA would be further
examined in a detailed EIA study to be undertaken by the successful
bidder.
43. A
Member declared his interest as being a member of the
Board of the Mass Transit Railway Corporation which would
be a potential bidder for the project.
44. The
Chairman was concerned about the size of the turning stations
and related facilities which would create adverse visual and
noise impacts. He also asked whether the proponent would undertake
measures such as re-planting to beautify the not only the
affected area but also to create a veritable hillside garden
like the Kadoorie Farm. CE(Islands)/TDD said that the
size of the turning stations would depend on the system to
be used. As for the latter question, he said that in Australia,
visitors could walk down from the turning stations to tour
around. He would look forward to receiving the bidders' suggestions
on how the nearby area could be best exploited. SE/TDD
supplemented that the turning stations could be sheltered
to reduce noise impact and bidders would need to look at measures
to prevent hill fire by, for instance, planting rows of trees
along the footpath.
45. In
reply to a Member's enquiry, CE(Islands)/TDD said that
the number of pillars/towers to be used could range from eight
to thirty depending on the system to be used. If fewer towers
were built, they would be taller in height and potentially
more visually intrusive. The actual size of each tower would
range from 9m2 to 16m2 and the work area for each tower would
be around 100m2.
46. A
Member asked whether the Administration could give more
favourable consideration to the bidders proposing towers of
smaller size. In response, CE(Islands)/TDD said that
the smaller the towers, the greater they would be in number
so as to support the system. Another Member imagined
that the cable car facilities would be intrusive structures
and he was interested to see how the impact would be overcome
in the EIA report. The Chairman said that the Council
would assess the overall construction impacts of the project
itself and against the other bids.
47. Picking
up the point of preventing hill fire, a Member said
smoking on the cable car should not be allowed. CE(Islands)/TDD
replied that this was a problem with anyone in the Country
Park. Smoking would not be allowed inside the cabins.
48. On
the Chairman's enquiry of the time-table of the project, CE(islands)/TDD
said that they intended to finish the tender document within
the next couple of months and allow three months for the bidders
to submit proposals. The selection process would be completed
by the end of 2001 and the EIA study would commence in early
2002 and be finished by mid-2003.
49. A
Member envisaged that the Cable Car would attract more
tourists to the area and urged the Administration to take
into account the cumulative impacts of more tourists traveling
in the area. The Chairman agreed with that Member and
said that the Council had just been briefed on the re-alignment
of Tung Chung Road and Members were concerned about the traffic
demand arising from the two projects. CE(Islands)/TDD
said that Members' concern was well taken.
50. A
Member asked whether the project would require additional
facilities and if so, whether the facilities would be covered
in the Cable Car EIA study. CE(Islands)/TDD said that
the Tung Chung terminus of the Cable Car would be close to
the MTR. Additional water supply and sewerage facilities would
be required at the Ngong Ping terminus. SE/TDD said
that Water Supply Department and Drainage Services Department
would be responsible for the additional facilities and would
conduct separate EIAs for those facilities.
(Post
Meeting Note : The Chairman has asked that those EIAs should
some before ACE at the same time.)
51. A
Member was concerned that the project would bring about
more development in the nearby area. AC/Tourism said
that the full impact of the Cable Car project partly depended
on the ultimate choice of the system and the operation plan.
According to her understanding, Plan D was under a time-table
to publish an Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) for Ngong Ping in
2002, and the draft OZP would be made available for public
inspection later this year. At. AD(TS)/PlanD supplemented
that the intended land-use in Ngong Ping was laid out in the
gazetted Ngong Ping Development Permission Area Plan. He felt
that there would unlikely be drastic change to the intended
land-use in the replacement OZP to be prepared.
52. A
Member said that there were SSSIs in the area and to preserve
them, there should be access management in view of the increase
in visitors.
53. The
Chairman thanked the presentation team and looked forward
to receiving the EIA report in due course.
Agenda
Item 6 : Hong Kong 2030 - Planning Vision and Strategy Stage
One Public Consultation - Planning Vision and Key Study Areas
(ACE Paper 4/2001)
54. The
Chairman welcomed AD(T)/PlanD to the meeting. AD(T)/PlanD
gave a brief introduction of the planning study.
55. The
Chairman said that he had attended the Forum of the Study
in question and had made some comments on behalf of the Council.
One major concern was that there seemed to be a lack of a
comprehensiveenvironmental impact assessment of projects around
Long Valley which are being contemplated over time that was
of high ecological value. As a result, several planned major
roads or railways linking up with the Mainland would likely
intrude into the area. In reply, AD(T)/PlanD said that
a strategic environmental assessment would be carried out
under the HK 2030 Study, which would assess the environmental
impacts of all the key proposals together.
56. Referring
to para. 5 of Annex D of the ACE Paper which read "To achieve
the above planning objectives, we need to strike a balance
in the demand for and supply of environmental resources",
a Member expressed grave concern over how sustainable
development was interpreted. He said that experience in other
areas proved that "environment" was often sacrificed at the
expense of economic growth and other during considerations
during the balancing process. He was worried that if the definition
of Sustainable Development had not been set out correctly
before adopting the resulting principles in strategic planning,
the proposals, which would be tested by the Computer-Aided
Sustainability Evaluation Tools (CASET), would not achieve
the level of sustainability desired.
57. In
response, DEP said that the traditional planning approach
was to assess the environmental impact after formulating a
strategy and then design mitigation measures to compensate
for the loss. However, the present new approach would inject
environmental considerations in the scenario-building process.
As such, EPD would play a greater role in the planning process.
58. Whilst
echoing DEP's point above, a Member considered that
it should be made clear during the planning consultation process
that sustainability was the aim rather than one of the objectives
of each planning proposal.
59. On
learning that the final report of the Sustainability Development
for the 21st Century (SUSDEV21) was released recently, A
Member asked whether the report would be discussed at
a Council meeting. AD(T)/PlanD said that Plan D, if
requested, would take pleasure in presenting the report to
Members. The Department could also explain the rationale behind
CASET to give Members a better understanding of how the evaluation
tool would work.
60. A
Member commented that one of the approaches of SUSDEV
was to make reference to ecological footprint. In that connection,
he said that Friends of the Earth (FoE) had recently completed
a survey on the ecological footprint of Hong Kong in terms
of energy, food, water and urban land, etc. On urban land,
it was found that Hong Kong was performing much better than
the world's average because high-rise buildings were always
built on both sides of the roads. However, performance on
transport planning was unsatisfactory due to the doubling
of footprint by routes running side by side along the same
areas. The Chairman encouraged FoE to submit the methodology
and findings of the survey to the Council for reference.
61. In
response to that Member's comments, AD(T)/PlanD said
that different people had different interpretations of SUSDEV.
On the environmental aspect, the Plan D would conduct strategic
environmental assessments on planning/development proposals
on the basis of statutory and administrative environmental
objectives.
62. The
Chairman also expressed concern on SUSDEV and cited the Long
Valley as an example of unsatisfactory performance as far
as SUSDEV was concerned. DS(B)/EFB suggested adopting a more
comprehensive look at SUSDEV. He said that the spirit of SUSDEV
was that in enjoying a satisfactory economic or social environment,
one should also make sure that such an environment was compatible
with maintaining the diversity of nature, efficiency in the
use of energy and other resources, etc. A Member concurred
with DS(B)/EFB and said that the ultimate objective
of SUSDEV should make Hong Kong a better place to retain people
and a better environment to attract experts and investment
from overseas. He was of the opinion that the planning objectives
of the HK 2030 study should take into account factors like
education and training opportunities as these constituted
part of the ultimate objective of SUSDEV.
63. In
response to that Member's comments, AD(T)/PlanD said
that the purpose of the HK 2030 study was to update the Territorial
Development Strategy (TDS) which addressed the question of
how much, what type and where new development land should
be provided in Hong Kong over the next 30 years. It was not
a 'Hong Kong Development Plan' and education and training
issues were outside of its remit.
64. A
Member hoped that HK 2030 would be a tool to draw the
limits of development in the next thirty years and to give
guidance to policy makers during policy formulation process.
65. In response to the Chairman's remarks, AD(T)/PlanD said
that the HK 2030 study was an update of TDS and it adopted
the timeframe set out by the Commission on Strategic Development.
This updating exercise would incorporate the vision and policy
initiatives promulgated by the Chief Executive in his Policy
Address. In addition, policy inputs would be solicited from
various Bureaux for incorporation into the strategy formulation
process.
66. A
Member felt disappointed that there was no community input
before the framework of HK 2030 study was set out. To ensure
that the HK 2030 planning strategy would meet the needs of
the community, he said that people should be asked about their
aspirations for the future of Hong Kong. AD(T)/PlanD
responded that the 'Planning Objectives' were their understanding
of community aspirations as gathered from the many public
consultation exercises conducted by Planning Department. Nevertheless,
they were still subject to public comments, which was the
very aim of the first stage public consultation.
67. A
Member said that as the Council was concerned about the
environmental aspect, he proposed adopting "no net environmental
loss" as an objective of the HK 2030 study. He said that when
environmental policy was in the hands of the former Secretary
for Planning, Environment and Lands, the Secretary came up
with the idea of providing compensation for potential loss
of wetlands through the planning process by artificial creation.
68. A
Member commented that planning involved not only the physical
perspective, it would also touch upon the socio-economic angle.
He hoped that changes in various policies would be reviewed
before the final stage of the HK 2030 study. DS(B)/EFB
assured Members that the study was a Government-wide planning
process in which public participation had been and would be
involved in all steps. He re-iterated that the framework of
the HK 2030 study had already incorporated public input during
the consultation of the TDS and SUSDEV21. He would look to
the co-operation of Bureaux to update Plan D of changes in
their policies so that a better planning strategy could be
made.
69. A
Member wondered how public comments on Government policies
could be reflected when they were only invited to comment
on the planning strategy. In reply, AD(T)/PlanD said
that though Plan D would not consult the public on policies
of various Bureaux, people had already been making comments
on planning which had implications on different policies.
He said that Plan D would reflect these comments to the highest
level of the Government. The Chairman said that the
Social Welfare Advisory Committee under his chairmanship would
consider the HK 2030 study in the welfare perspective and
advise the Government in that respect and no doubt the other
advisory committees would do the same.
70. A
Member said that such studies often took considerable
time and costs to complete but could not reflect the up-to-date
situation due to rapid changes in the society. He considered
it important to put in place a mechanism to avoid conflicts
between different policies. In response, AD(T)/PlanD
said that the HK 2030 study was a focused study on emerging
factors likely to have significant impact on our future development.
Many other factors which had been studied would not be repeated.
Furthermore, the strategic planning framework was never intended
to be rigid, but flexible and subject to review on a regular
basis.
71. The
Chairman thanked AD(T)/PlanD for his presentation.
Agenda
Item 7 : Any Other Business
View-sharing
Meeting on Future Landfill Development in Hong Kong
72. The
Chairman informed Members that EPD would organize a view-sharing
session on 2 March 2001 at 9:30am in Revenue Tower to present
the groundwork that had been done to secure sufficient waste
disposal capacity for Hong Kong's continuous development and
to hear views on steps to be taken. DEP supplemented
that the Administration would determine the way forward among
various options of waste disposal, and welcome views from
stakeholders and interested parties.
73. The
Chairman reminded Members that if they would like to propose
any topic for discussion, they could either inform him or
the Secretariat to make arrangements. |
|