Loading

Advisory Council on the Environment

Confirmed Minutes of the 62nd Meeting of the Environmental Impact Assessment Subcommittee of the Advisory Council on the Environment held on 3 September 2001 at 9:00am

Present:
Professor LAM Kin-che (Chairman)
Mr. Otto POON (Deputy Chairman)
Mr. Barrie COOK
Professor Anthony HEDLEY, BBS, JP
Mr. Peter Y C LEE, SBSt.J
Mr. LIN Chaan-ming
Dr. NG Cho-nam
Mrs. Mei NG
Miss Alex YAU
Miss Petula POON (Secretary)


Absent with Apology:
Dr. HO Kin-chung


In Attendance:
Mr. Elvis AU Assistant Director (Environmental Assessment & Noise), Environmental Protection Department (EPD) (AD(EA)/EPD)
Mr. C C LAY Assistant Director (Conservation), Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) (AD(Cons)/AFCD)
Ms. Cora SO Executive Officer (C), Environment and Food Bureau


In Attendance for Agenda Item 3:

Mr. CHUNG Chi-ming Senior Engineer (Project Management), DSD (SE(PM)/DSD)
Mr. CHENG Chung-shan Engineer (Project Management), DSD (E(PM)/DSD)
Mr. S V JONES Director, Mouchel Asia Ltd. (Director/MAL)
Mr. Edmond K K LAM Senior Engineer, Mouchel Asias Ltd. (SE/MAL)


In Attendance for Agenda Item 4:

Mr. C B MAK Acting Chief Engineer / Kowloon East, TDD (Atg.CE(KE)/TDD)
Mr. P C MOK Senior Engineer / Kowloon East 2, TDD
Mr. K K LO Acting Senior Engineer / Kowloon East 3, TDD
Mr. Y W YEUNG Study Manager, Ove Arup & Partners HK Ltd. (SM/OAPL)
Mr. Alan KWOK Director, Environmental Management Ltd (EML) (Director/EML)
Mr. Peter LEE Senior Environmental Consultant, EML (SEC1/EML)
Mr. K L POON Senior Environmental Consultant, EML (SEC2/EML)
Mr. Mark HARRISON Director, Murray Harrison Ltd. (Director/MHL)
Mr. Ken WONG Acting Principal Environmental Protection Officer (Urban Assessment), EPD
Mr. David COX Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Urban Assessment/ Kowloon), EPD


In Attendance for Agenda Item 5:

Mr. CHAN Wa-shek Executive Director, Citybus Ltd. (ED/Citybus)
Ir. Paul LI Assistant General Manager, Engineer, Citybus Ltd. (AGM/Citybus)
Mr. Victor CHAN Managing Director, Ling Chan + Partners Ltd. (MD/LCP)
Dr. Sarah LIAO Managing Director, CH2M HILL (China) Ltd. (MD/CH2M)
Mr. Eden NGAN Senior Consultant, CH2M HILL (China) Ltd. (SC/CH2M)
Dr. Calvin CHIU Consultant, CH2M HILL (China) Ltd.
Mr. Ken WONG Acting Principal Environmental Protection Officer (Urban Assessment), EPD
Mr. Johnson WONG Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Urban Assessment/Hong Kong Island), EPD

*************************
The Chairman welcomed Mrs. Mei Ng for attending Subcommittee meeting for the first time.

Agenda Item 1 : Confirmation of Minutes of 61st Meeting held on 4 August 20012.

The minutes were confirmed without amendments.

Agenda Item 2 : Matters Arising

3. There were no matters arising from the minutes of the last meeting. Agenda Item 3 : Implementation of the Drainage Improvement Works for Ping Yuen River
(ACE-EIA Paper 10/2001)

4. The Chairman welcomed SE(PM)/DSD, E(PM)/DSD, Director/MAL and SE/MAL to the meeting. SE(PM)/DSD introduced the background of the paper and Director/MAL briefed Members on the features of the revised design of improvement works for Ping Yuen River and highlighted the ecological impacts.

Maintenance and Management of Meanders

5. The Chairman asked whether the project proponent would maintain the abandoned meanders after completion of channelization works. Director/MAL replied that the culvert structure connecting the river channel would maintain the stream course of the abandoned meanders.

6. In reply to a Member's enquiry on active management programme for the abandoned meanders, SE(PM)/DSD said that for meanders outside the project boundary, they would leave them intact. For those which were within the boundary, they would discuss with AFCD on the need for active management and the necessary requirements. Their discussion with AFCD or other relevant departments would also cover the issue on management responsibility.

7. On a related point, the Chairman said that some meanders, although outside the project boundary, might be affected by changes in water flow due to the channelization scheme. He therefore doubted that leaving them intact would not serve the purpose of maintaining them. Director/MAL responded that the design of the channel included culvert structures to link up the meanders with the channel to allow water to flow in between. SE(PM)/DSD added that government as a whole would provide the necessary management to existing meanders although different departments might be responsible for different issues. AD(Cons)/AFCD supplemented that the consultant would also be required to consider the need for active management and the necessary requirements for those meanders outside the project boundary.

8. In response to a Member's question, Director/MAL confirmed that the level of the channel was designed to allow water to flow in the meanders.

Change in Design from 1 in 5 years to 1 in 50 years rainfall event

9. Noting that more land would be taken up and more disturbance would result from the change in design to 1 in 50 years rainfall event, the Chairman asked whether the change was justifiable and whether the design had been applied to other rivers in Hong Kong.

10. In response, SE(PM)/DSD said that since mid 1990s, more developments had been planned in the catchment areas of Ping Yuen River. Under the study entitled "Study on Port Back-up Land and Open Storage Requirements" undertaken by the Planning Department, Ping Che area was identified as a major site for open storage purpose. The Outline Zoning Plan for Ping Che and Ta Kwu Ling had been amended to expand the area for open storage and incorporate other changes in land use. Such developments together with severe flooding in recent years in the area called for a higher flood protection standard. The design was therefore upgraded to 1 in 50 years rainfall event which was adopted by a number of rural trunk channels, for example, the Yuen Long & Kam Tin Main Drainage Channel (Contract A, B & C up to Kam Tin Area). The revised design would widen the channel at the river mouth by about 10m and would not take up much additional land.

11. In reply to the Chairman's enquiry on whether the 1 in 50 years rainfall event was adopted for the whole channel or only the lower part of the river, SE(PM)/DSD said that the design was adopted for the whole project which, however, covered only the lower part of the river.

12. A Member asked why the channel ended at Ping Che Road and not extended further. In reply, SE(PM)/DSD said that flood protection was an on-going exercise. The protection plan for river course upstream was being studied under another master drainage plan.

13. A Member anticipated that residents near the project area would query the need to construct a channel which was much larger than the original meander. SE(PM)/DSD said that during public consultation exercise, they had explained to the villagers that the objective was to provide protection to Fung Wong Wu which had been a flooding blackspot in that area.

14. Noting that the natural river courses of some drainage projects could be left untouched, a Member asked whether the project proponent had considered such alternatives. In response, Director/MAL said that the natural river courses could not be kept in this case due to their lack of capacity to carry the flow. He assured Members that other alternatives had been considered but none was more suitable than the current proposal.

15. A Member said that he supported the change in the design of rainfall event but was concerned whether there was a need for further expansion of the channel upstream. SE(PM)/DSD responded that the current project had taken into consideration the need of the whole catchment area and would not be affected by the population density of individual areas. Director/MAL affirmed that since the project was for the rehabilitation of rural drainage, the modeling used in the project covered the whole New Territories.

16. A Member enquired about the effectiveness of the mat geotextile reinforced grass. In reply, Director/MAL stated that the mat geotextile reinforced grass was an engineered finish which comprised 150mm of topsoil with an open mesh geotextile near the surface. The surface was hydroseeded and the mat geotextile was designed to support the root growth to provide a stable surface that would both resist erosion and allow re-vegetation by native species.

17. A Member noted that there were five pond features in the proposed channel and suggested doubling the number so as to increase compensation for the project. Director/MAL agreed to consider the suggestion but said that they had to ascertain the engineering feasibility.

18. A Member asked whether it was possible to leave the natural rivers intact and use the adjacent agricultural land as natural flood bank and install flood barriers alongside the bank. In response, Director/MAL said that to obtain the necessary flow path, the flood bank would need to be 4-5m above the ground level. Thus the best way would be to deepen the existing river.

19. A Member enquired about the optimum size of backfilling of the meanders and the plantation mix of the re-created grasslands. In reply, Director/MAL said that there would not be significant backfilling. As regards plantation mix, they intended to use the mix for River Indus and River Beas after reviewing the results towards the end of the year to see if any improvements should be made.

20. In response to a Member, SE(PM)/DSD said that the project would cost about HK$100 million. 12-month Ecological Survey21. The Chairman noted that in the last EIA report, it was recommended that a 12-month ecological survey should be carried out to ascertain whether there were residual impacts from the proposed design. He asked why such survey had not been done. Director/MAL explained that the findings of the EIA study completed in 1996 were quite negative. However, according to the result of the field work carried out in 1999, further ecological survey was not required.

23. A Member queried how the proponent could measure the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures in future monitoring in the absence of baseline data on flora and fauna found in the existing habitats of the project area. Director/MAL said that their approach was to recreate the same habitats to allow the same species to settle in.

24. In response to a Member, Director/MAL said that they would specify in the contracts that fencing should be installed around the works site during construction so as to prevent impacts on meanders and areas nearby.

25. The Chairman said since the only remaining concern about the project was the inadequacy of the ecological survey, he asked whether the Subcommittee would like to bring the matter forward to the Council for further discussion. A Member said that as far as he was aware, the project, which was not designated under the EIA Ordinance, would not require ACE's endorsement to proceed. The Chairman then asked whether there were ways for the proponent to provide the necessary data on ecology. Another Member said that the key concern was the management of the meanders and suggested that like the River Indus and River Beas projects, the proponent could provide a supplementary paper on the design and management regime for the abandoned meanders and to incorporate it into the mitigation measures of the project.
 

 
26. In response to a Member's suggestion, SE(PM)/DSD said that they would discuss with AFCD on the appropriate management plan for the meanders and would prepare the supplementary paper in due course.

27. The Chairman asked Members if they had any recommendations on the proposed channel itself. A Member said that the proponent should ensure that the habitats and species lost were compensated by the re-created habitats. Another Member pointed out that in 1996, ACE already endorsed the EIA report with the proposed mitigation measures. The question therefore was whether the 5.7 ha of grassland habitat and 1.8 ha of riverine habitat compensation would have the same, if not better, ecological value than the original habitats. In response, Director/MAL said that the ecological value of the re-created habitats would at least be equivalent to existing habitats.

Comments and Recommendations of the Subcommittee

28. The Chairman concluded that the Subcommittee had taken note of the paper and the report on the revised design of the channel and agreed that the project should proceed subject to the proponent's submission of a supplementary paper on the design and management regime of the abandoned meanders. In addition, the Subcommittee recommended that:

  1. the meanders abandoned from the project should be maintained;
  2. more ponds could be provided in the channel;
  3. the proponent should request the contractor to take all necessary measures to prevent damage to the vegetation and to keep the abandoned meanders intact; and
  4. the proponent should decide on the plantation mix after reviewing the result of similar works undertaken for River Indus and River Beas.
DSD
29. In response to a Member's request, SE(PM)/DSD undertook to make arrangements for the Subcommittee to pay a site visit to the improvement works in River Indus and River Beas.

Agenda Item 4 : Comprehensive Feasibility Study for the Revised Scheme of South East Kowloon Development
(ACE-EIA Paper 12/2001) 30. The Chairman welcomed Atg.CE(KE)/TDD et al. to the meeting. Atg.CE(KE)/TDD briefed Members on the background of the Study followed by Director/EML's presentation on the detailed findings and recommendations of the EIA Report.

Air Quality

31. A Member quoted from paragraph 11 of ACE-EIA Paper 12/2001 that "the Air Quality Objectives (AQO) would be met at all air sensitive receivers". He said that meeting the AQO did not imply that there were no adverse impacts on health. He was disappointed that the percentage for tunnels/depressed roads was just 25%. In response, Atg.CE(KE)/TDD said that one of the planning objective for SEKD was to provide a cleaner environment. The design of roads and footpaths was intended to discourage vehicular entrance and facilitate walking. The routing of pedestrian paths also provided convenient connection with rail-based transport system. SEC1/EML supplemented that ambient air pollutant concentrations were high in the area due to two existing roads, namely Kwun Tong Bypass and Prince Edward Road East. That said, pollutant concentrations towards the Harbour area were predicted to be lower because of the use of tunnels and depressed roads.

32. A Member felt that it was a great opportunity to develop an emission-free new town in SEKD. Instead of "encouraging" walking and use of rail-based transport and "discouraging" vehicles access, more prescriptive measures should be adopted to minimize adverse impacts from traffic to every possible extent. In reply, Atg.CE(KE)/TDD said that the planning target was to provide as many underground roads as possible in SEKD but that was constrained by other considerations like underground drainage and sewerage systems, and traffic safety. SM/OAPL explained that the percentage of depressed roads (25%) appeared to be low because it took into account the existing Kwun Tong Bypass and Prince Edward Road East.

33. A Member raised questions on why :
  1. the percentages of roads and open space were almost equivalent given the commitment to rail-based design;
  2. school village was situated in an area where high levels of NOx and RSP concentrations were predicted;
  3. a vehicular ferry pier which would encourage road-based traffic was provided;
  4. "park & ride" facilities was not provided; and
  5. whether a public ferry pier would be provided for the purposes of tourist attraction and encouraging marine transport.


34. Atg.CE(KE)/TDD clarified that on (a), the percentage of roads included footpath, therefore the actual percentage of roads for vehicles was less than 25%. On (c), the vehicular ferry pier was only a replacement for the existing facility in Kwun Tong for transporting dangerous goods. On (d), there would be park & ride facilities in three major public interchanges surrounding SEKD area. On (e), they proposed to provide a tourist excursion ferry pier at the end of the runway but the viability of a ferry service was yet to be examined. On (b), SEC1/EML said that air pollutant concentrations were high because the school village was close to existing trunk roads. However, there would be buffer area to minimize the impacts of traffic.

35. In response to the Chairman's follow up question on (b), SEC1/EML said that the current arrangement was effective in terms of land use and further land reclamation might be required if the school village was to be re-located elsewhere.

36. A Member recalled that during public consultation exercise, one of the proposals put forward by professional bodies was to develop a fossil fuel-free city in SEKD. He asked whether the idea could still be considered at the present stage. Atg.CE(KE)/TDD said that it was the best they could do at the moment to allow for more than 60% rail-based transport. They would give due consideration to Mr. Poon's comment at the detailed design stage.

37. The Chairman asked whether it was possible to further increase the 60% rail-based transport. SM/OAPL replied that the general percentage for rail-based transport in Hong Kong was about 25% and there was plan to increase it to 35%. In view of the need to provide roads for loading and unloading activities and emergency services, it was unlikely to further increase the 60% rail-based transport in SEKD.

38. A Member encouraged the use of environmentally friendly transport in SEKD and asked if there were any measures to strengthen its competitiveness among other transportation modes. She also suggested providing links between EFT stations and public ferry service to promote the use of cleaner transport. Atg.CE(KE)/TDD said that the possibility of expanding EFT would be considered by the operator in the detailed design stage. As regards tourist excursion ferry pier, it would be located close to EFT stations.

Handling of Contaminated Sediments

39. A Member enquired about the effectiveness of treating a large scale of contaminated sediments in-situ using Biogenesis washing, and he sought clarification on the gas protection measures as a fallback. In response, Director/EML said that subject to the pilot tests, it was possible to increase the scale according to the need. SEC2/EML said that the proposed fallback measure was to install gas-collecting pipes to collect biogas released from the sediments.

40. A Member asked whether the proponent had compared the effectiveness of different treatment options and made reference to methods in other countries. She also asked whether Deep Cement Mixing was a new technology and whether its effectiveness had been tested. Lastly, she expressed concern about the monitoring of the whole treatment process.

41. In response, Director/EML said that they had conducted trial tests on in-situ treatment with three different kinds of chemicals to identify the most effective method. As regards the ex-situ treatment method, it was a common sediment washing process which had been used for treating hazardous waste and sediments at chemical weapon sites. A Member pointed out that unlike treatment sites in other countries, Hong Kong was a densely populated city. She was concerned as to how the proponent could ensure that residents nearby would not be affected by the potential gas/odour problem. Director/EML said that the whole treatment process would be undertaken inside a building and gas/odour was not expected to be a problem because the sediments contained mainly metallic pollutants and the whole treatment process would be closely monitored. As regards Deep Cement Mixing, it had not been used in Hong Kong before. Therefore they would carry out pilot test before adopting the method.

43. A Member remarked that the sediments in Kai Tak Approach Channel seemed to be the largest amount of toxic waste to be handled in Asia and he was concerned over the uncertainty of the proposed treatment options. In response, Atg.CE(KE)/TDD said that the purpose of the pilot tests was exactly to ascertain the effectiveness and safety of the proposed methods. Director/EML supplemented that based on monitoring data for works done overseas, in-situ treatment using Fenton's Reagent could remove about 99% of the contaminants. For ex-situ treatment, the percentage ranged from 86% to 96%.

44. In response to the Chairman's enquiry, Director/EML said that efficiency in removing pollutants was the main assessment criterion in comparing the different treatment methods. TDD and EPD would scrutinize the results of the pilot tests. SEC1/EML supplemented that Kai Tak Approach Channel Reclamation was subject to EIA study. The proponent would consult ACE on the EIA report in due course.

Visual Impacts

45. A Member asked whether there was any height restriction on high-rise landmarks and whether the proponent had done modeling on building height to ensure the preservation of the skyline. In reply, Atg.CE(KE)/TDD said that two physical models had been built to confirm the overall space parameters. Director/MHL said that there were only three high-rise landmarks in SEKD, namely the town center (200mpd), the hotel for tourist (180mpd) and the stadium (55mpd). Landmarks were often designed as high-rise buildings because they could serve as a center of orientation for distant viewers. Atg.CE(KE)/TDD supplemented that most of the landmark developments in SEKD were either zoned as Comprehensive Development Area (CDA) or Other Use (OU). The layout and disposition of these developments would be subject to the scrutiny of the Town Planning Board.

46. A Member expressed that she would like to see more innovative design of landmarks in SEKD. Atg.CE(KE)/TDD said that the relevant authority might consider launching an open contest in that regard.Land De-contamination

47. A Member enquired about the method to be adopted for land de-contamination and how confident the proponent was to carry out the works without causing adverse impacts to people nearby. Atg.CE(KE)/TDD said that the major area of concern was the existing terminal building and the Government Flying Service hanger which would be vacated by 2005. Hong Kong had lots of experience in land de-contamination and the effectiveness and safety of the technology was proven. The land de-contamination project was a Schedule 2 project which required a separate EIA study.

Refuse Transfer Station

48. A Member asked whether the Refuse Transfer Station would be compatible with the rest of the area and expressed concern about the potential odour/hygiene impact on residents and tourists. In response, Atg.CE(KE)TDD said that with reference to a similar facility in Kennedy Town, odour was not a problem. SEC1/EML supplemented that the project would require a separate EIA study.

Automated Refuse Collection System (ARCS)

49. A Member asked whether ARCS would be applied to other areas in SEKD. In response, SM/OAPL said ARCS had become a standard provision for public housing estates. As regards its application to other areas, they were considering installing a more centralized ARCS and the possibility was being studied. SM/OAPL supplemented that they had reserved sufficient land to allow further expansion of ARCS.

50. A Member pointed out that the existing design of ARCS did not facilitate waste separation and recycling. He urged the proponent to include such functions in the design of ARCS. Atg.CE(KE)/TDD took note of that Member's comments.

Views and Recommendations of the Subcommittee

51. The Chairman asked whether Members would accept the EIA report. A Member considered that the school village should not be located near trunk roads where air quality would be poor. She also felt that the pilot tests for the treatment of contaminated sediments should be subject to risk assessment of the highest standards and the results be scrutinized by a third party and the public.

52. The Chairman said that on air quality, though the EIA had met the criteria of the Technical Memorandum of the EIA Ordinance, he urged the proponent to take into account that Member's comments regarding the location of the school village. He proposed and Members agreed to endorse the EIA report without conditions on the understanding that the results of pilot tests on different treatment options for contaminated sediments would be scrutinized by EPD and a copy of the report(s) be made available to the Subcommittee for information. That Member expressed that she endorsed the EIA report with reservation.

Agenda Item 5: Proposed Headquarters & Bus Maintenance Depot at Chai Wan
(ACE-EIA Paper 13/2001)

53. The Chairman welcomed ED/Citybus et. al. to the meeting. Due to time constraint, the Chairman proposed proceeding with the questions and answers session straight away.

Selection of Site for the Depot

54. The Chairman noted that the proposed site was close to the Hong Kong Institute of Vocational Education (IVE)(Chai Wan) and a few housing estates. He asked whether there were alternative sites for the depot. In reply, ED/Citybus said that there were only two available sites in the Eastern District. The site in A Kung Ngam consisted of three patches of undeveloped land which was too small for the depot. The proposed site was the only remaining site available.

55. In response to the Chairman's question, ED/Citybus said that they had not consulted the IVE directly on the project but a consultation exercised was carried out for the general public. SC/CH2M supplemented that the management of IVE was aware of the project.Cumulative Impacts

56. In response to a Member, SC/CH2M said that the cumulative impacts arising from industrial operations and traffic nearby and the New World First Bus Depot had been assessed in the EIA study. The impacts contributed from the project were considered negligible.

Construction Noise

57. In reply to the Chairman, SC/CH2M said that the monitoring of construction noise would be conducted once a week. The Chairman commented that since the contractor would deal with complaints or exceedances in noise level within three days, it would imply that cases might only be handled after a lapse of 10 days. AGM/Citybus explained that the predictions of construction noise level were based on the worst-case scenario. The use of big-diameter bore-pile instead of the conventional H-pile method and together with noise barriers would greatly reduce construction noise. ED/Citybus supplemented that they would commission a full-time independent environmental team to monitor the noise level. SC/CH2M drew Members' attention to the EM&A Manual which stated in para. 2.7.13 that "In case of non-compliance with the construction noise criteria, more frequent monitoring as specified in the Action Plan shall be carried out". The Chairman considered that the frequency of monitoring should be increased to prepare for the worst case.

Traffic Noise

59. A Member commented that the queuing of buses for return to the depot would cause noise impact and adverse impact on air quality. She asked whether the proponent had worked out a bus schedule to reduce the number of buses queuing up outside the depot. AGM/Citybus said that the maximum number of buses leaving or returning to the depot would be less than 80 per hour. It was not anticipated that buses would be queuing up in front of the depot.

60. A Member said he had once lived in Chai Wan for years. He found that noise generated by buses in the early morning when the background noise level was low was particularly disturbing. He asked whether the proponent would consider controlling the speed of buses in some areas. AGM/Citybus replied that the present bus engines were well contained at the rear of buses and properly insulated. In addition, buses using engines of Euro II standard were much quieter.

61. The Chairman asked how the proponent could enforce the restrictions not to use Wing Tai Road and Shing Tai Road. ED/Citybus said that all drivers would be trained to adhere to specific routes and inspectors would monitor the performance of drivers to ensure that they observe the restrictions.

Air Quality

62. A Member asked why the figures of the cumulative pollutant concentrations from open road traffic emission & depots emission (Table 4-16 of EIAR) did not tally with those of the predicted pollutant concentrations from open road vehicular emission (Table 4-11 of EIAR) and those of the predicted pollutant concentrations due to emissions from Citybus Depot and NWFB Depot (Table 4-15 of EIAR). SC/CH2M explained that the background pollutant concentrations were included in all three tables.

63. A Member was concerned about the accuracy of the modeling because the RSP levels were not progressing in the same manner as NO2 levels. MD/CH2M clarified that the figures reflected the fact that the percentage increase in RSP concentration arising from the operation of the depot would not be as much as that in NO2, which was consistent with the composition of bus emissions.

65. A Member reiterated that meeting the AQO did not mean that there would be no adverse impacts, a more precautionary approach should be adopted to avoid adverse impacts on health. AD(EA)/EPD said that the criterion used in reviewing EIA was whether AQO could be met.

Traffic Forecast

66. A Member noted in para. 4.3.4 of the Executive Summary that the proponent had conducted a traffic forecast and she enquired about the basis of the traffic forecast. SC/CH2M said that the project traffic consultant had commissioned an on-going traffic impact assessment and the assessment had been endorsed by Transport Department. In the forecast, the planning of the current project, the New World First Bus Depot as well as other traffic demand had been taken into account.

67. In response to a Member's question, ED/Citybus said that the government transport policy was to promote mass transit railway as the backbone of local transport system. Bus service was only supplementary in nature. He did not envisage any significant development or expansion of bus service in future. AGM/Citybus added that should there be new routes proposed, a separate depot should be included as a package to meet the increase in service demand. MD/LCP confirmed that the design of the foundation of the depot would not support expansion.

68. In response to a Member's question, ED/Citybus said that a 24-hour hotline was in place to receive any enquiries or complaints about their bus service.

Recommendations of the Subcommittee

69. The Chairman concluded that the Subcommittee would recommend endorsement of the EIA report with the condition that the frequency of monitoring of construction noise be increased to once every three days.

Agenda Item 6 : Any Other Business

Noise Review Documents for Pamela Youde Child Assessment Centre / School Dental Clinic & Yau Kam Yuen Prevocational School

70. The Chairman informed Members that the Noise Review Documents were submitted for the Subcommittee's information in accordance with the endorsement condition of the EIA report on KCRC-Tai Wai to Ma On Shan Extension in December 1999. Members had no comments on the Documents.

Sand Dredging at West Po Toi Marine Borrow Area

71. Members noted that the third progress report was sent to them on 23 August 2001 via e-mail. Tentative Items for Next Meeting

72. As there was no item scheduled for the next meeting, the Chairman proposed to discuss the implications on the EIA system in Hong Kong arising from the Judgment of the Appeal Board on the Spur Line project.
 

DSD
73. AD(EA)/EPD said that the Director of Environmental Protection had undertook at the ACE meeting held on 27 August 2001 that EPD would prepare a discussion paper for the EIA Subcommittee on implications mentioned above. As there were a number of legal implications arising from the Judgment, it would take time for EPD to discuss the issues with the Department of Justice. He would let Members know whether a paper could be drawn up for discussion at the next meeting.
 
EPD
74. The Chairman invited Members to identify issues of concern for inclusion in the paper and to let Mr. Au know as soon as possible.
 
Members
Agenda Item 7 : Date of Next Meeting

75. The next meeting was scheduled for 8 October 2001 at 4:00pm.


EIA Subcommittee Secretariat
September 2001

 




 

Back to topdot_clear.gifTable of Content
User defined date2: 
Friday, 28 April, 2006