Appendix 6 – Minutes of Various Briefings to Public and Advisory Bodies

Minutes of 884th

Meeting of the

Town Planning Board held on 4.5.2007

Present

Permanent Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands Chairperson (Planning and Lands) Mrs. Rita Lau Mr. Michael K.C. Lai Dr. Greg C.Y. Wong Ms. Carmen K.M. Chan Professor Nora F.Y. Tam Mr. Nelson W.Y. Chan Mr. David W.M. Chan Mr. Leslie H.C. Chen Dr. Lily Chiang Professor Peter R. Hills Mr. Tony C.N. Kan Mr. Edmund K.H. Leung Professor Bernard V.W.F. Lim Dr. C.N. Ng Dr. Daniel B.M. To Mr. Stanley Y.F. Wong Mr. Alfred Donald Yap Ms. Sylvia S.F. Yau Mr. B.W. Chan Mr. Walter K.L. Chan Ms. Maggie M.K. Chan Mr. Raymond Y.M. Chan Mr. Y.K. Cheng Ms. Anna S.Y. Kwong Dr. James C.W. Lau Ms. Starry W.K. Lee

Director of Planning Mrs. Ava S.Y. Ng Deputy Director of Environmental Protection Dr. Michael Chiu Director of Lands Mr. Patrick L.C. Lau Principal Assistant Secretary (Transport), Environment, Transport and Works Bureau Ms. Ava Chiu Assistant Director (2), Home Affairs Department Ms. Margaret Hsia Deputy Director of Planning/District Secretary Miss Ophelia Y.S. Wong

80

Absent with Apologies Dr. Peter K.K. Wong Vice-chairman Professor David Dudgeon Professor N.K. Leung Mr. Felix W. Fong Professor Paul K.S. Lam Mr. K.Y. Leung In Attendance Assistant Director of Planning/Board Mr. Lau Sing Chief Town Planner/Town Planning Board Mr. C.T. Ling (Item 4) Ms. Brenda K.Y. Au (Items 1-3 and 5-15) Senior Town Planner/Town Planning Board Mr. Ivan Chung (Item 4)

Town Planner/Town Planning Board Mr. Tony Wu (Items 1-3 and 5-15

81

82

Agenda Item 3 [Open Meeting] Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront – Stage 1 Public Engagement (TPB Paper No. 7825) [The meeting was conducted in Cantonese.] 7. The Chairperson said that in response to the Board’s request, the Planning

Department (PlanD) had commissioned the Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront (the Study) for the refinement of the urban design framework for the Central Harbourfront and the preparation of planning/design briefs for key sites in the area. The study outputs would guide the preparation of the Master Layout Plans (MLP) and future developments in the area.

[Mr. Leslie H.C. Chen and Mr. Y.K. Cheng arrived to join the meeting at this point.] 8. The following representatives from the PlanD and Study consultants were

invited to the meeting at this point:

Ms. Phyllis Li Chief Town Planner/Special Duties, Planning Department (PlanD)

Mr. Kryan Sze ) Aedas Limited Ms. Irene Ip ) Professor Andrew Leung

CityU Professional Services Limited

Presentation and Question Session 9. The Chairperson extended a welcome and invited the representatives of the

PlanD and the consultants to brief Members on the Study. 10. With the aid of Powerpoint slides, Ms. Phyllis Li made the following main

points:

The Study (a) in considering several rezoning requests/application in relation to the

Central District (Extension) Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) in 2005 and 2006, the Board had reaffirmed the land use zonings of the current plan and rejected the requests/application. After considering the concerned rezoning requests in August 2005, the Board requested the PlanD to refine the existing urban design framework and to prepare planning/design briefs to guide future development of the key sites in the Central Harbourfront;

(b) the Study was commissioned by PlanD in late March 2007. Its main

tasks were to examine the planning and design context, refine the urban design framework and prepare a landscape strategy plan, evaluate and refine the design concepts of key sites, and prepare planning/design briefs or conceptual landscape design guidelines, and identify design control mechanisms;

(c) the Study outputs would guide the preparation of MLP and future

developments in the Central Harbourfront. It would formulate a sustainable design assessment framework, undertake a sustainable assessment for the refined urban design framework, carry out air ventilation assessments to cover major development sites around the ferry piers, and examine the locations and design ideas for reconstructing the old Star Ferry Clock Tower (SFCT) and reassembling the Queen’s Pier (QP);

Public Engagement

(d) the public engagement programme comprised two stages:

i. the Stage 1 public engagement was launched on 3.5.2007 and would last for about 2 months. It aimed to solicit public views on the urban design objectives, urban design issues and sustainable design principles relating to the Central Harbourfront, and to explore with the community the possible locations and design ideas for reconstructing the old SFCT and reassembling the QP;

ii. planned public engagement activities in Stage 1 included a

Focus Group Workshop mainly for the participation of professional and academic institutions on 5.5.2007; a Community Engagement Forum for the general public on 12.5.2007; engagement of the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee, relevant District Councils and relevant advisory bodies; and setting up of a web-page on the Study in PlanD’s website to facilitate dissemination of information and to invite interested parties to offer their views through the web. A bilingual pamphlet for Stage 1 public engagement was at Attachment B of the Paper;

iii. public comments received during Stage 1 would provide inputs

to the subsequent phases of the Study; and

iv. Stage 2 public engagement would focus on seeking public views on the refined overall urban design framework, design concepts and planning/design briefs for the key sites, and on proposed locations and design ideas relating to the Clock

83

Tower and QP. [Professor Bernard V.W.F. Lim, Dr. Lily Chiang and Ms. Anna S.Y. Kwong arrived to join the meeting at this point.] 11. With the aid of Powerpoint slides, Mr. Kryan Sze made the following main

points on the Study:

Study Scope and Objectives

(a) the new Central Harbourfront mainly comprised the already reclaimed land near the outlying ferry piers, Central Reclamation Phase III (CRIII) and a small part of the Wan Chai Development Phase II (WDII);

(b) the eight key sites were the “Comprehensive Development Area”

(“CDA”) at Central Piers No. 4 to 6 (Site 1), the “Commercial” site adjacent to the International Finance Centre II (Site 2), the “CDA” with landscaped pedestrian deck and commercial complex (Site 3), three waterfront related commercial and leisure uses sites (Sites 4, 6 and 8), the “Government, Institution or Community (2)” site to the north of CITIC Tower (Site 5), and the promenade along waterfront of CRIII (Site 7);

(c) the Study would take into account the urban design context including

the statutory and administrative guidelines, the existing urban design framework, the illustrative concept of the new Central Harbourfront in 2006 and the design constraints;

(d) the planning vision of the Study was to create a world-class waterfront

which was vibrant, attractive, accessible and symbolic of Hong Kong; (e) the urban design objectives, urban design emphases, key urban design

issues were stated in paragraph 5 of the Paper; (f) the sustainable design assessment framework was set out in the

pamphlet at Attachment B of the Paper;

Proposals for Reconstructing Old SFCT and Reassembling QP (g) based on consideration of the spatial and historical context, identity,

functionality, accessibility, visual prominence and flexibility for planning, four alternative concepts for reconstructing the old SFCT and reassembly of the QP were suggested to facilitate public discussion as set out in paragraph 6 and Attachment B of the Paper; and

(h) the SFCT would be reconstructed as the focal point of the new Central

Harbourfornt and pedestrian corridor. The retained clock faces, chimes

84

and mechanical parts would be reassembled in the reconstructed Clock Tower. A gallery might be built adjacent to the reconstructed Clock Tower to exhibit the salvaged items of the old Star Ferry Pier.

[Dr. James C.W. Lau arrived to join the meeting at this point.] 12. Professor Andrew Leung then made the following main points on public

engagement:

(a) the Stage 1 public engagement was mainly to find out the public aspiration of the harbourfront, i.e. what they would like, or would not like, to have on the future harbourfront;

(b) public engagement activities in Stage 1 included a workshop, a public

forum, exhibitions and consultation with various bodies. Opinion cards, telephone and web surveys, etc. would be used to collect public opinions; and

(c) the public engagement process would be open, transparent and

collaborative. 13. Ms. Phyllis Li went on to say that the Stage 1 public engagement was the

starting point of the Study aiming at designing the new harbourfront with the public. The four alternative concepts for reconstructing the old SFCT and reassembly of the QP had been formulated to facilitate public discussion. Ms. Li stressed that the concepts were not exhaustive and the public were not asked to pick one from the four. Public views and suggestions on other concepts were welcomed. Some Board Members had agreed to lead the discussions in the workshop and forum to be conducted. On the basis of comments and suggestions received from Stage 1, a refined overall urban design framework and planning/design briefs for the key sites would be formulated for public consultation at Stage 2.

14. Members supported the consultative approach of the Study and the

engagement of the public in planning the harbourfront. Their comments and questions were summarized as follows:

Public Engagement (a) to facilitate public comments and suggestions, a roving exhibition

should be staged;

(b) the public should be encouraged to express their views and draw out their ideas and proposals. They should not be confined to any pre-defined design concepts;

(c) how would public views and suggestions be consolidated, noting that

85

some of which might be conflicting with one another;

(d) as some of the jargons and the alternative concepts for the Clock Tower and QP in the pamphlet were rather conceptual and abstract, members of the public might not be able to fully understand the meaning and implications behind. Also, there was no elaboration on the implications of the alternative concepts such as the length in delay of works and cost implications to CRIII. Hence, more illustrative materials and supplementary information on the ‘Considerations’ should be provided;

(e) physical models to demonstrate the detailed design concepts and

proposals should be used in the Stage 2 public engagement exercise;

(f) more information on the development parameters of Site 3 (i.e. the ‘groundscraper’ site zoned “CDA”) should be given as it would have significant impact on the harbourfront;

Study Approach and Scope (g) the Board’s previous request for refining the urban design framework

for the new harbourfront covered all the key sites in the Study. Whilst the SFCT and QP had attracted much public and media attention, the Study should not lose sight of the overall picture and other harbourfront sites;

(h) the Study should identify the elements that would contribute to the

achievement of a world-class harbourfront and explore ways to turn such objective into reality. Apart from skyscrapers and cityscape that had made our harbourfront renowned worldwide, the water quality of Victoria Harobur and a clear sky were also major areas that needed to be improved;

(i) whether there was any priority amongst the various urban design

objectives, urban design issues and the key sites; Urban Design Issues (j) the urban design on two sides of the harbour should be considered as a

whole and complementary to each other. The wide public views from Kowloon towards the Central Harbourfront should be preserved;

(k) the Study should propose urban design solutions to link the Central

Harbourfront to the east and west and to the hinterland to the south;

(l) drawing reference to the Charles River in Boston, the design and development of the Central Harbourfront could adopt a maritime theme with provision of amphitheatre and outdoor venues for performance, in

86

harmony with the Multi-media Lighting Spectacular event, therefore adding variety and vibrancy to the harbourfront;

(m) the Study should take into consideration Hong Kong’s hot and humid

summer in designing the greenery and open space;

(n) whether and how the Tamar site would be included in the refined urban design framework;

(o) the Study should address the issues of bringing people to and from the

harbourfront and facilitating the public to enjoy the harbour;

Clock Tower and QP (p) the various proposals to reassemble the QP should only be treated as

some possible options. The future of QP was still under discussion by the general public and the Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) would decide on the grading of QP at its next meeting on 9.5.2007. The Board’s discussion should not be seen as pre-empting the deliberation of the AAB;

(q) the architectural design of QP itself might not be outstanding. However,

it was the clustering of City Hall, Edinburgh Place and QP that altogether had high cultural, historical and social significance;

(r) whilst the design of a place should take due heed of its historical and

cultural background holistically, the physical context of QP had changed over time. In considering the future of QP, a balance on the passion of history and development needs should be struck, thus achieving a sustainable development. For instance, the Sung Wong Toi Rock had also been relocated several times. The Board should look into the matter in a balanced and fair manner;

(s) the Clock Tower could be integrated with the development in the

‘groundscraper’ site; (t) whether there was any proposal to reconstruct the Clock Tower in-situ; (u) whether the Edinburgh Place would be affected as a result of the

proposed reconstruction of the Clock Tower and reassembly of the QP;

The ‘Groundscraper’ Site (v) whether there was any building height restriction for the

‘groundscraper’ site to avoid incompatible development; and

Military Berth

87

(w) whether and to what extent the 150m military berth would affect the

urban design of the area and impede the public enjoyment of the harbour, and whether the Government had made a firm decision on the use of this very important waterfront site.

15. The Chairperson said that the suggestion of setting up display boards and

placing opinion cards near the Star Ferry Pier should be pursued. The Study team should endeavour to work out an urban design framework that could help achieve the community’s objective of having a world-class harbourfront, making the best use of our landmarks such as the Convention and Exhibition Centre, the skyline and the ridgeline. Members’ views on the proposed reassembly of the QP would not pre-empt the public discussion and AAB’s deliberation on the grading of the pier.

16. In response to Members’ comments and questions, Ms. Phyllis Li, Mr.

Kryan Sze and Ms. Irene Ip made the following main points:

Public Engagement (a) the public would be engaged in various ways throughout the Study

process. For example, in the forthcoming Focus Group Workshop and Public Engagement Forum, group discussions led by facilitators would be held and participants could put forward their ideas and suggestions verbally and in drawings. They would not be confined to commenting on the four alternative concepts for reconstructing the SFCT and reassembling the QP;

(b) the sustainable design principles to be agreed at the Stage 1 public

engagement would be used to guide the process of building community consensus on the refinement of the urban design framework, evaluate various proposals and suggestions put forward by the public, and prepare planning/design briefs for the key sites;

(c) the bilingual pamphlet had incorporated some 3-dimensional

perspectives of the new harbourfront. Additional illustrative materials and supplementary information on the design concepts and proposals would be provided to the public;

Study Approach and Scope (d) the launch of the Stage 1 public engagement was only the starting point

of the Study. The issues for public consultation at this stage were largely conceptual, relating to the principles to be adopted in the formulation of urban design framework and planning/design briefs for the key sites. The public would be further consulted on the detailed proposals and design framework in the Stage 2 public engagement;

88

(e) the Study would adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to

explore and refine the urban design framework for the Central Harbourfront. It would look into the urban design objectives and urban design issues before formulating detailed planning/design briefs of the eight key sites and exploring design solutions for the Clock Tower and QP;

(f) Victoria Harbour, the ridgelines and the city skyline were indeed the

major assets of our harbourfront and would be given due recognition in the effort to turn the area into a world-class harbourfront. The Study would prepare detailed planning/design briefs with key development parameters including building height restrictions. The Study outputs would guide the preparation of MLP and future developments on this important part of Hong Kong;

(g) the consultants had carried out researches on what made harbourfront

developments successful. In designing the Central Waterfront, both overseas experience and local views on ways to enhance the harbourfront would be duly considered;

(h) the Board’s ‘Vision and Goals for Victoria Harbour’ promulgated since

1999 would be adopted to guide the Study with a view to turning the Study area into a vibrant, accessible, and world-class harbourfront;

(i) the Government had a comprehensive policy on sewage treatment and

improving the water quality of the harbour. The Study would adopt sustainable urban design principles to improve urban climate such as provision of breezeways, air ventilation corridors, high quality public space and pedestrian environment, and enhancement of openness and greenery;

(j) The Study covered the entire harbourfront and emphasized on

achievement of an integrated urban design framework. The Clock Tower and QP were part and parcel of the waterfront;

Urban Design Issues (k) urban design framework and landscape strategy plan would be prepared

to maximize views from various vantage points through the Central Harbourfront;

(l) the Study team had commenced work on preparing planning/design

briefs for the eight key sites to ensure the future developments would be functional, of high quality, diversified with unity, vibrant and highly accessible;

89

(m) the Study would look into ways to enhance the urban design connections between the Central Harbourfront and the adjacent areas. In the east, Site 6 which straddled the CRIII and WDII would provide an essential link between the harbourfront in Central and Wanchai. In preparing the design briefs for the site, special effort would be made to the urban design and pedestrian connections along the harbourfront. The Study would also explore ways to integrate the design of the harbourfront with the hinterland. There would be an integrated pedestrian connection system to maximize accessibility to and from the harbour and along the waterfront;

(n) as an extension to the proposed expansion of the Hong Kong Academy

for Performing Arts, Site 6 would also have a high potential for development into a harbourfront arts and cultural precinct with outdoor venues;

(o) the proposed maritime or an appropriate theme for the harbourfront

with a variety of open space and outdoor performance venues would be explored as part of the Study with a view to creating ‘anchoring space’ for people to congregate and enjoy various activities;

(p) as the Tamar site was at the tendering stage, it was not included as one

of the eight key sites of the Study. However, the selected scheme for Tamar development would be integrated in the design of the new harbourfront under the Study;

Clock Tower and QP (q) the alternative proposals put forward by the consultants were based on

the design objective to group the City Hall, Edinburgh Place and the Clock Tower sufficiently close together and form an axial relationship amongst them. The Study team would adopt an open attitude and look into the in-situ reconstruction option in the course of the Study;

(r) the value of QP as manifested in its co-existence with the adjacent City

Hall and Edinburgh Place was recognized in the Concept A Series (‘QP with City Hall’). On the other hand, the Concept B Series (‘QP by the Harbour’) could better reflect of the history that QP was always located on the harbourfront;

(s) the Edinburgh Place would not be affected by the proposed

reconstruction of the Clock Tower and reassembly of the QP. Instead, the place would be improved by expanding the open area for public use;

The ‘Groundscraper’ Site (t) the preliminary design concept for the ‘groundscraper’ site had been

90

incorporated in the pamphlet. Although the design solution was yet to be worked out, the public concern on the bulk of future development was fully recognized. Building height control was one of the most important issues to be addressed in the urban design briefs for the site;

(u) through the planning permission system, the Board could exercise

proper control on the future form and bulk of the development via the scrutiny of the submission of MLP at the s.16 application stage; and

Military Berth (v) the location of the military berth in Central had been determined for a

long time. Allowance had been made to the design of the berth such that it could be open to the public when the berth was not in use by the navy.

17. The Chairperson said that Members’ valuable comments and suggestions

should be carefully considered by the Study team. The Study aimed at refining the urban design framework for the entire waterfront and formulating detailed planning/design briefs to guide the preparation of MLP and future developments of the eight key sites. The Study Team should clarify that the Study would not solely focus on the reconstruction of the SFCT and reassembly of the QP.

18. The Chairperson went on to say that it was important to plan with the

community. Every effort should be made to conduct the public engagement exercise properly and facilitate the public to provide their comments. Whilst the public consultation period should not be unduly prolonged, flexibility should be allowed to extend the period if necessary. Given the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance, the Central Harbourfront would be the last reclaimed site in the Central Business District. It was thus essential to ensure the delivery of a high quality design taking into account the public views as far as practicable.

19. As Members had no further question to raise, the Chairperson thanked the

representatives of the PlanD and the consultants for attending the meeting. They all left the meeting at this point.

20. The meeting adjourned for a break of 5 minutes and resumed at 10:45 a.m.

91

HHEECC SSuubb--ccoommmmiitttteeee oonn HHaarrbboouurr PPllaann RReevviieeww

AAdd HHoocc MMeeeettiinngg

Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront Public Engagement Strategy and Programme and Stage 1 Public Engagement

Notes of Meeting

Date : 10 May 2007 Time : 3:30 pm – 5:15 pm Venue : Room 1401, North Point Government Offices, 333 Java Road, North Point Present Mr Vincent Ng (Chairman) Representing Hong Kong Institute of Architects Dr Alvin Kwok Representing Conservancy Association Mr Kim Chan Representing Hong Kong Institute of Planners Mr Raymond Lee Chief Town Planner/Sub-regional, Planning Department

(PlanD) Ms Sally Fong (Secretary) Senior Town Planner/Sub-Regional 3, PlanD In Attendance Ms Phyllis Li Chief Town Planner/Special Duties, PlanD Mr Roy Li Senior Town Planner/Special Duties (2), PlanD Ms Agnes Tang Town Planner/Special Duties 4, PlanD Ms Irene Ip Aedas Ltd. Mr Tony Yeung Aedas Ltd. Professor Andrew Leung CityU Professional Services Ltd. Mr Kevin Manuel CityU Professional Services Ltd. Ms Kalam Cheung CityU Professional Services Ltd. 1. Ms Phyllis Li and the consultant teams briefed Members on the progress of

the Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront, the associated Public Engagement Strategy and Programme (PESP) and Stage 1 Public Engagement with the aid of powerpoint slides.

2. Members considered that the public engagement process should be handled with

great care as it was rather sensitive to consult the public on matters relating to the old Star Ferry Pier and Queen’s Pier at this stage. It was crucial for the public views to be analysed in an objective and scientific manner so as to increase the credibility of the study, and to avoid any misperception that public views were manipulated to suit the study outcome.

3. Members had the following specific questions/comments:

92

(a) how the public views would be integrated into the study; and how the comments already expressed by the public or raised in other relevant occasions like CHarM and the meetings of LegCo and Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) would be input into the study;

(b) the design objectives and key urban design issues appeared to be

universally applicable and too general to provide sufficient information and reference for formulating design options and selecting the preferred options;

(c) how the sustainability design principles were formulated, and whether

such principles would be revised upon public comments;

(d) the alternative concepts for reassembling Queen’s Pier might not meet the general call for in-situ preservation of the pier; and

(e) notwithstanding that four alternative concepts had been proposed, other

public ideas should be considered as far as practicable. The noise impact of having both clocks of the old and new clock towers chiming in close proximity would be a concern. Adequate space should be reserved around the City Hall to maintain its social function and its image as the landmark of the city;

(f) how to ensure that there would be close coordination between the study

and the public engagement consultants; and

(g) whether any useful findings had been obtained from the Focus Group Workshop held on 5 May 2007.

4. Ms Phyllis Li and the consultant teams responded as follows:

(a) public engagement would be carried out in an open, transparent and collaborative manner. The press was invited to attend all public engagement activities. A website had been set up to facilitate the dissemination of information;

(b) the questionnaire and engagement activities were specially designed to

facilitate the identification of the majority views on the relative importance of various design objectives and key issues. Their views would be reflected in the public engagement reports to be prepared by the public engagement consultant;

(c) written and verbal comments raised in other occasions, including the

LegCo, AAB, media reports and all individual comments, would be analysed qualitatively together with the comments collected from the public engagement activities. Responses to the questionnaire survey

93

would be analysed quantitatively. The findings would be passed onto the study consultant for refining the design;

(d) design merits and technical feasibility of the design ideas put forth by the public would be assessed by the study consultant in consultation with relevant Government departments. For those public ideas which were not taken further in the study, reasons would be fully explained;

(e) in formulating the sustainable design assessment framework, reference

had been made to the sustainability indicators originated from the CASET model. The sustainable design assessment framework covers the sustainability design principles relevant to the Central Harbourfront, the relevant design components and the sustainability indicators for the evaluation of the study proposals;

(f) the urban design objectives, key issues, and sustainability design

principles/ criteria as included in the pamphlet were formulated taken into consideration of the comments raised by the public and LegCo in previous occasions, the findings of CHarM and other relevant studies. The special characteristics of the study area, in particular, its distinctive role to support the commercial function of the Central Business District and to provide ample regional open space and leisure opportunities in this strategic location, the need to ensure quality building design and the respect of cultural heritage of the area, had also been duly considered. The design objectives, key issues and sustainable design assessment framework would be revised to take account of the public comments received where appropriate;

(g) the discussions between LegCo and the Administration in the past few

months had revealed that there were technical difficulties to proceed with the reclamation and other engineering works if the Queen’s Pier was to be preserved in-situ. Different urban design options in reassembly would be further explored under the planning framework embedded in the current Outline Zoning Plans;

(h) the old Star Ferry Clock Tower and Queen’s Pier were two iconic

features affecting the overall design of the Central Waterfront. The objective of proposing four alternative concepts to the public was to facilitate discussion. They were by no means exhaustive and other design ideas would be welcomed. In addition to accessibility, functional and cultural heritage considerations, the ability to form an anchoring space was one of the key factors affecting their locational choices;

(i) the study and public engagement consultants would work closely with

each other. The study consultant would help translate the public ideas collected by the public engagement consultant into practical planning/design briefs to guide the future development of the key sites; and

94

(j) the Focus Group Workshop held on 5 May 2007 was targeted at

professional and academic institutions. Some new design ideas had been received, but the programme rundown was rather tight. Quite some time was spent on discussion on the study assumptions in some groups. For better arrangement in the forthcoming public forum to be held on 12 May 2007, the study assumptions would be made clear at the outset. Discussion would be focused on three major topics, i.e. the overall design objectives for the Central Waterfront, design issues for the key sites, and the design ideas on the reconstruction of old Star Ferry Clock Tower and reassembly of Queen’s Pier, and would be covered in separate sessions to ensure better allocation of discussion time on each topic. The option of in-situ reassembly of Queen’s Pier would be clearly stated in the presentation materials to facilitate discussion.

5. Mr Raymond Lee said that the HEC had played different roles in previous

public engagement exercises, e.g. CharM, Kai Tak Planning Review and Wan Chai Development Phase II Review, and the extent of involvement varied amongst different projects. The Sub-committee had assumed the role of advising on the PESP and providing comments on the study for PlanD’s consideration in this project.

6. The Chairman thanked Ms Phyllis Li and her consultant teams for the

presentation and discussion, and remarked that Members might continue to provide comments on the Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront during the course of the public engagement process.

HEC Sub-committee on Harbour Plan Review June 2007

95

(Translated Copy)

Minutes of Non-Official Meeting of Central and Western District Council Former Tamar and Queen’s Pier Sites

Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront Date: 18-5-2007 (Friday) Time: 2:30 pm

Venue: Conference Room, Central and Western District Council 14th Floor, Harbour Building, 38 Pier Road, Central Hong Kong

Chairman Mr. CHAN Tak-chor, MH, JP Vice Chairman Mr. WU Chor-nam, JP Councillors Mr. CHAN Chit-kwai, Stephen, JP Ms CHENG Lai-king Mr. CHUNG Yam-cheung Ms HO Sau-lan, Cyd Mr. YUEN Bun-keung Guests Item 3 : Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront Ms. LI Chi-miu, Phyllis Chief Town Planner Special Duties Division Planning Department Mr. LI Chi-huen, Roy Senior Town Planner Special Duties Division Planning Department Ms. YIP Man-kiu Aedas Ltd. Professor LEUNG Yee-tak City University Professional Services Limited Professor TAM Chi-ming City University Professional Services Limited

96

Mr. CHAN Chung-yuen Senior Engineer/Housing and Planning Urban Regional Office Transport Department Mr. SUEN Yau-hau, Tony Senior Executive Officer (Planning) Leisure and Cultural Services Department Item 3 : Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront 10. The Chairman welcomed the representatives of the Planning Department, Aedas Ltd., City University Professional Services Limited, Transport Department and Leisure and Cultural Services Department to the meeting. 11. Ms. LI Chi-miu, Phyllis, Chief Town Planner of the Special Duties Division of the Planning Department briefly introduced the “Urban Design Study for New Central Harbourfront” and the commencement of Stage I Public Engagement. With the aid of powerpoint presentation, Ms. YIP Man-kiu of Aedas Ltd. Introduced the background, objectives and scope of the Study, the major urban design issues and sustainable design assessment framework, the contents of the public engagement programme as well as the proposed concepts for reconstructing the old Star Ferry Clock Tower and reassembling Queen’s Pier. Ms. LI Chi-miu, Phyllis added that the present consultation would focus on some issues of principles relating to the urban design for the new Central harbourfront. 12. The Chairman invited views from the councilors, as summarized below:

(a) Ms. HO Sau-lan, Cyd opined that the map on the pamphlet was not easy to read, and Planning Department could make improvement to it. She considered that the consultation document failed to illustrate the overall layout of the new Central harbourfront.

(b) Mr. CHAN Chit-kwai considered that the Study was incomplete as the planning was confined to the new Central harbourfront while neglecting the Western District. In fact, tourist spots such as Sun Yat-sen Memorial Park were found in the Western District. Therefore, he hoped that the Central and the Western District would form the basis of the harbourfront design. In addition, he raised two major points in relation to the two public engagement activities: first, the harbourfront area should facilitate public access; and second,the harbourfront development should not be too commercialized.

(c) Mr. CHUNG Yam-cheung was disappointed that the consultation document had

not provided design details on the new harbourfront. He asked the Planning Department to provide a specific design blueprint based on the “world class new harbourfront” principle. He requested to include the “Flying Dragon” sign of Hong Kong into the new Central Harbourfront design. He supported Mr. YUEN Bun-keung’s views, i.e. reassembling Queen’s Pier at the original location to preserve the original character of the area.

97

(d) Ms. CHENG Lai-king referred to the plan at Appendix A and asked whether the General Post Office opposite to Jardine House would be replaced by a “medium-rise commercial building”. According to past experience, she requested the Council to pay more attention to the “Comprehensive Development Area” (“CDA”) and “Other Specified Uses” (”OU”) sites. From the public perspective, she would veto the plan in view of the abundance of commercial land and the design combining “low-rise pedestrian deck” with groundscraper. She asked the Planning Department to explain the meaning of “sitting-out area on road”. She doubted whether there would be sufficient transport facilities in the area upon the completion of the commercial buildings as shown on the plan. She supported in-situ preservation of the City Hall and Queen’s Pier and requested the Planning Department to consider public views.

(e) Mr. YUEN Bun-keung opined that the planning failure was due to the

excessive commercial land which affected the harbourfront amenity. many places were zoned for commercial use which would have great impact on the harbourfront facilities. In addition, the harbourfront facilities were so scattered that the public had to go through many obstacles before reaching the open space. He considered that the harbourfront should be solely for public use, while commercial use would only increase traffic flow in the area.

13. The Chairman opined that the consultation document had focused on the design of Queen’s Pier and Clock Tower while neglecting the overall design of the harbourfront. The public welcomed development and aspired to have more space for low-rise facilities to revitalize the harbourfront, but did not want commercial buildings at the harbourfront He asked Planning Department to provide details on the planned facilities shown on the plan after the meeting. He asked whether the retail shop, office and hotel development annotated for “Site 1’ had been completed; and whether the office development at “Site 2” was proposed development. He reiterated that the Council did not want to have more commercial development at the harbourfront, and requested the Government to beautify the harbourfront. 14. Ms. LI Chi-miu, Phyllis responded that the plan in the pamphlet was taken from the Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs). The concerned authorities would decide the detailed design concepts of the eight key sites through studies and consultation. Proposals for specific facilities and options for pedestrian linkages would be put forward in the next stage. Planning Department noted the views of the District Council for less commercial development at the harbourfront. About 8.9 hectares of land in the Central Reclamation Phase III was designated for open space. Some land would need to be reserved for commercial use so as to sustain the development of the Commercial Business District (CBD). Commercial land in the reclamation area was only slightly more than 2 hectares. Ms. LI Chi-miu, Phyllis explained that the uses annotated for Sites 1 and 2 were future developments. Professor LEUNG Yee-tak of City University Professional Services Limited supplemented that in the public engagement activities on May 5 and May 12, only part of the discussions was on the Queen’s Pier and Clock Tower issues, while many views were collected on the development of the new Central harbourfront including the aspiration for less commercial development at the

98

harbourfront. The present study had taken the OZPs prepared by the Town Planning Board and approved in 2002 and 2003 as the basis. Mr. LEUNG stressed that the authorities would listen to public views with respect to the “world class harbourfront” concept. Ms. YIP Man-kiu of Aedas Ltd. added that the Study was still in its preliminary stage and thus the consultation was only on the issues of principle. Ms. LI Chi-miu, Phyllis stated that the harbourfront development for the Western District would be reviewed and handled by the Hong Kong District Planning Office. Furthermore, in accordance with the OZP, the General Post Office site mentioned by Ms CHENG Lai-king would be for comprehensive development. 15. Ms. HO Sau-lan, Cyd stressed that an ideal harbourfront envisaged by the public was non-polluted, easily accessible, non-restrictive, and with open space where the public and tourists could stroll around freely. There was no need for the authorities to erect any landmarks there. She enquired the Planning Department about the ratio, plot ratio and building height of the commercial land shown on the plan, and whether the concept of sustainable commercial development mentioned above was confined to the Central District or Hong Kong as a whole. Mr. CHAN Chit-kwai opined that there should be an overall planning for the harbourfront area and the waterfront promenade of Central, Sheung Wan and the Western District. He also opined that the participants of the public engagement activities were mostly professionals instead of the general public. Hence, he suggested organizing another consultation forum to collect public views. Ms. CHENG Lai-king asked the Planning Department to clarify whether the “proposed railway station” on the plan was an airport railway station, and whether the “open space deck over depressed Road P2” on the plan would mean an open space deck away from an at-grade podium or a road. She hoped that the open space would be at-grade. 16. Ms. LI Chi-miu, Phyllis responded that according to the OZP, the “CDA” to the north of Statue Square would have a gross floor area of 190,000m2 and a plot ratio of slightly more than 3. As the Central District was the CBD of Hong Kong, there were a strong demand for office and commercial facilities in the district. Only a limited amount of land was planned for commercial use to maintain the competitive edge of the CBD. The development parameters of the “CDA” and “OU” sites were governed by the statutory plan and its Notes. The authorities had conducted feasibility study on the development of the reclamation area, and the planned roads could meet the development needs of the district. The 8.9 hectares of open space were all at-grade. As the section of Road P2 near the Tamar site was below grade, and pedestrians could access the harbourfront through an open space deck. The railway station near the Tamar site was a station of the North Hong Kong Island Line. The public engagement activities included a Focus Group Workshop for the professionals and academic institutions as well as a Community Engagement Forum for the general public. Moreover, the Planning Department would consult the Central and Western District Council, Wanchai District Council, Islands District Council and other advisory bodies to collect views. 17. Ms. HO Sau-lan, Cyd asked the Planning Department to provide information on the types of buildings, building height, traffic flow and pedestrian facilities in the

99

consultation document. In response, Ms. LI Chi-miu, Phyllis said that the information on the relevant development parameters, land uses and site photos were uploaded to webpage of the Planning Department relating to the “ Urban Design Study for New Central Harbourfront”. The next stage of the Study would include landscape, visual, and air ventilation assessment as well as considerations on the design concepts of the key sites and the various options, and the public would be consulted at the Stage 2 Public Engagement. Professor LEUNG Yee-tak supplemented that participants of the Focus Group Workshop were mainly professionals, while those of the Community Engagement Forum were members of the general public. 18. The Chairman added that the Sheung Wan Gala Point was organized again in the district but the result was not satisfactory due to a change in the food and beverage culture. He concluded that the Council had placed a heavy emphasis on public participation, and requested the Planning Department to report to the Council on the initial findings of the public engagement. As for the information provided in the consultation document, the Council was strongly against any further commercial development at the harbourfront, particularly hotels. However, the Council would support the provision of cafés, gift shops etc. which would add vibrancy to the harbourfront. The Planning Department should not misconceive sustainable commercial development in Hong Kong as sustainable commercial development in the Central District. Mr. CHAN Chit-kwai reiterated that the new harbourfront development should be extended to the Western District. The Chairman hoped that more efforts would be made to greening for enjoyment by the public. 19. Ms. LI Chi-miu, Phyllis said that the consultant would prepare a report on Stage 1 Public Engagement for circulation by the relevant consultation bodies including the district councils. The Chairman expressed thanks. District Council Secretariat Central and Western District Council June 2007

100

(Translated Copy)

Minutes of the 21st Meeting of the Planning, Traffic and Environmental Protection Committee

Second Term of Wan Chai District Council Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

Date: 22 May 2007 (Tuesday) Time: 4 pm Venue: District Council Conference Room, Wan Chai District Office 21/F, Southorn Centre, 130 Hennessy Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong Present: Vice Chairman Mr. LEE Hing-wai, Bonson Members Ms WONG Ying-kay, Ada, JP Dr. TSE Wing-ling, John, MH Ms. TSUI Wai-ling, Carlye, BBS, JP Mr. SIU Che-hung, Paul Mr. LO Kin-ming, Tommy Mr. WONG Wang-tai Mr. CHENG Ki-kin Mr. LEE Kai-hung, Kennedy Mr. CHAN Yiu-fai, Steve Ms. KING Mary Ann Pui-wai Co-opt Members Dr. Charles KOO Mr. K. LIU Mr. K.H. NG Mr. S.H. LAW Mr. K. W. CHOW Mr. L.S. LEE Mr. Y. P. CHAN Representatives of Government Departments Miss KAN Ting-chi, Sally Asst. Dist Officer/Wan Chai District Office Mrs. FOK TSE Suet-yue, Lily Senior Liaison Officer, Wan Chai District Office Mr. LI Kin-ngai Senior Estate Surveyor, Lands Department Mr. KO Wai-kuen Senior Engineer, Civil Engineering and

Development Department Mr. SIU Kang-chuen Engineer, Highways Department

101

Ms. TAM Yin Ping, Donna Senior Town Planner, Planning Department Mr. LAU Kwok-keung Senior Environmental Protection Officer,

Environmental Protection Department Mr. LEUNG Cheuk-pui Operation Officer, Wan Chai District, Hong Kong

Police Force Mr. LEUNG Cheong Kit Senior Transport Officer, Transport Department Mr. CHEUNG Sai-kwong, Tony Engineer, Transport Department Mr. WONG Siu-man, Simon Engineer, Transport Department Secretary Miss Tang Hoi-yin, Helen EO(District Council)2, Wan Chai District Office Absent Mr. NG Kam-chun, Stephen Chairman Mr. Adrian YIP Co-opt member Welcome Speech As the Chairman, Mr. NG Kam-chun, Stephen, was absent due to prior appointment, the meeting was chaired by the Vice-chairman, Mr. LEE Hing-wai, Bonson. The Vice-chairman welcomed all members to the 21st meeting of the Planning, Transport and Environmental Protection Committee (PTEPC) of the Wan Chai District Council and also welcomed the following persons: Planning Department Chief Town Planner Ms. LI Chi-miu, Phyllis ) for Agenda Item 5 Senior Town Planner Mr. LI Chi-huen, Roy) Aedas Ltd. Ms. POON Ming-sum) Ms YIP Man-kiu) City University Professional Professor LEUNG Yee-tak) Services Limited Ms. WONG Suk-ching)

102

Discussion Paper Item 5: Planning Department : Urban Design Study for the

New Harbourfront, Stage 1 Public Engagement (PTEPC Paper No. 19/2007)

9. Ms. LI Chi-miu, Phyllis of the Planning Department and Ms YIP Man-kiu, the representative of Aedas Ltd. briefed the Committee on the Paper. 10. Ms. WONG Ying-kay, Ada stated:

(i) The proposed “groundscraper” at the former Star Ferry Pier site seemed to be incompatible with the Central harbourfront. The waterfront promenade should be a place for enjoyment of the public, and considerations should be given to issues such as air quality and conservation of cultural heritage.

(ii) She was worried that the present PLA military berth would affect the overall outlook of the waterfront promenade and asked whether it could be shifted to the west.

(iii) Queen’s Pier was assessed as Grade 1 Historical Structures. Together with Edinburgh Place and City Hallm it formed a public place which was representative of Hong Kong. She was disappointed that the various proposals of the Planning Department (PD) involved relocation of the Pier. She agreed that the Pier should be preserved in-situ. Besides, she did not agree to the building of a replica clock tower.

11. Mr. SIU Che-hung, Paul opined that in-situ preservation of Queen’s Pier was preferred if it were to be removed from the original site as the original function would be lost. About one third to one fourth of the future population of Hong Kong would be above 60 years old. The Government should consider building pedestrian aid and barrier-free facilities to facilitate accessibility of the needy. 12. Ms. KING Mary Ann Pui-wai stated that if the width of planned Road P2 in association with Central-Wan Chai Bypass was about the same as that of Hung Hing Road, then why Queen’s Pier could not be preserved in-situ. She supported that Queen’s Pier should not be demolished. If it must be demolished, she preferred reconstructing it in-situ.

Responsible Officer

103

13. Mr. CHAN Yiu-fai, Steve stated that the general public might not know how to read the layout plan. He was of the view that the department concerned should provide a physical model to show the actual design of features such as the military berth or naval vessels so as to facilitate the public to better understand the real situation. 14. Mr. TSE Wing-ling, John asked about the estimated daily traffic flow of Road P2. 15. Mr. WONG Wang-tai stated and asked:

(i) The military berth of Hong Kong was seldom used. Hence, consideration should be made to open it for visit by the public periodically.

(ii) Members of the public did not know how to read or were not interested in reading the layout plan of the design. He agreed that the department concerned should provide a physical model and to collect public views extensively.

16. In reply, Ms. LI Chi-miu, Phyllis said:

(i) Stage 1 Public Engagement was focused on some principle issues pertaining to the Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront. As for the design and development concepts of the eight key sites, PD had not made any specific proposals. Therefore, dimensional visual images could not be provided for reference for the time being. A model or dimensional image would be provided for the next stage of public engagement to facilitate better understanding by the public.

(ii) The Government was working towards enhancing the continuity from Central to North Point waterfront. The proposed planning/design brief for the Central waterfront promenade would be prepared through the process of public engagement.

(iii) The present study was on urban design instead of land use review.

(iv) The scale of development at the “Comprehensive Development Area” (CDA) site north of Statue Square was completely different from that of IFC II. The plot ratio (PR) of IFC was as high as 18, which was higher than that of the CDA with PR of about 3.

(v) PD would cater for the needs of the disabled and the elderly. Appropriate passenger drop-off areas and pedestrian aid would be provided in the various developments along the harbourfront.

104

(vi) The “Sino-British Defence Land Agreement” stipulated that HKSAR must provide a military berth at the new Central harbourfront. In planning the military berth, considerations had been given to ensure its compatibility with the surroundings. The military berth would be open to the public when it was not in use to allow free access of pedestrians.

(vii) Road P2 had two major functions. It distributed traffic to various regional networks to alleviate present congestion, and it also provided access to buildings along the road. Road P2 was a dual-2 two-way road and it was wide enough to accommodate pedestrian walkways, passenger drop-off areas and landscaping on both sides of the road. As for the traffic flow, it was estimated that the daily peak PCU of Road P2 was 2700.

(viii) The Government noted the strong requst from some members of the public for in-situ preservation of Queen’s Pier. The concepts proposed for the present public engagement were to faciliate discussion by the public. There would be more specific proposals in Stage 2 public engagement. PD would relay the public views, including the mainstream views and other views, to the Government.

17. Mr. TSE Wing-ling, John considered that Concepts A1 and B1 were quite good. He agreed to preserving Queen’s Pier in-situ and hoped that the Pier would be located near the waterfront. He did not want the Pier to become a pavilion. 18. Ms. KING Mary Ann Pui-wai stated that if in-situ preservation was possible, it was acceptable even the Pier would be turned into a pavilion. 19. Mr. CHAN Yiu-fai, Steve stated that for better visual effect, he hoped that a model would be provided for reference at every stage of the public engagement in future. Otherwise, it would be difficult to visualize the proposals through imagination. 20. Ms WONG Ying-kay, Ada stated that even though there was no physical model, the Government department should have provided dimensional images through computer programming. Road P2 appeared to be similar to Connaught Road Central. The Central-Wan Chai Bypass would be built under the sea and was not related to Queen’s Pier.

105

21. Mr. NG Kam-chun, Stephen stated that the department concerned should note that the purpose for reclamation was to alleviate traffic congestion. 22. Mr. CHAN Yiu-fai, Steve stated that he agreed to the views of Mr. TSE Wing-ling, John that Queen’s Pier should be reassembled in-situ and located near the harbourfront. 23. In reply, Ms. LI Chi-miu, Phyllis said that there was no overlapping in the functions performed by the Central-Wan Chai Bypass and Road P2. Road P2 would distribute traffic in the area to alleviate traffic congestion and performed a function different from that of the bypass. 24. After discussion, Members gave preliminary support to Concepts A1 and B1, i.e. in-situ reassembly of Queen’s Pier and locating it near the harbourfront pending more detailed discussion at the public engagement next stage. Mr. WONG Wang-tai stated that as he had not seen the design model, he was unable to state his views at the present stage. District Council Secretariat Wan Chai District Council July 2007

106

(Translated Copy)

Final Version

Minutes of Meeting of the Environmental Improvement and Food Hygiene Committee of Islands District Council (Extract) Date: 28 May 2007 (Monday) Time: 2.30 pm Venue: Conference Room, Islands District Council Present Mr. LAM Kit-sing (Chairman) Mr. LO Kwong-shing, Andy (Vice-Chairman) Mr. CHOW Yuk-tong Mr. YUNG Chi-ming Mr. CHEUNG Kwok-kwong Mr. CHAN Lin-wai Ms YU Lai-fan, Mr. WONG Hoi-yue Ms LEE Kwai-chun Ms YUNG Wing-sheung, Amy Mr. Leung Siu-tong Mr. CHAN Ping-fai Mr. KUNG Wai-hing Mr. WONG King-chuen Mr. TANG Chit-ming Mr. WONG Sai-ming Mr. TANG Ka-piu Present as Observers Mr. CHEUNG Sing-man

District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Islands)

Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

Mr. LIU Yiu-Wai, Patrick

Senior Environmental Protection Officer

Environmental Protection Department

Mr. K. P. CHENG Police Community Relations Officer (Marine Port District)

Hong Kong Police Force

Ms LAI To-chu Police Community Relations Officer (Lantau District)

Hong Kong Police Force

Mr. Mak Kwai-fan Administrative Assistant/Lands (Islands) (Atg)

District Lands Office, Islands

107

Mr. TAM Chung-lun, Kennon

Assistant District Officer/Islands

Islands District Office

Mr. KWAN Man-hong Senior Inspector of Works

Islands District Office

Mr. HO Cheung-chun, William (Secretary)

Executive Officer I (District Council)

Islands District Office

Attended the meeting by Invitation Mr. YEUNG Shun-kui Assistant Director

(Ops)2 Food And Environmental Hygiene Department

Ms AU Wan-sze, Wendy

Principal Assistant Secretary (FEH)2 (Atg.)

Food and Health Bureau

Mr. LI Chi-huen, Roy Senior Town Planner Planning Department

Ms TANG York-may Town Planner Planning Department

Ms POON Ming-sum Senior Architect Aedas Ltd. Mr. YEUNG Sik-tong Architect Designer Aedas Ltd. Ms CHEUNG Kar-lam Education Assistant City University

Professional Services Limited

Absent with Apology (with the consent of the Committee) Mr. WONG Fuk-kan Ms WONG Chi-lin Mr. KAM Siu-fai IV. Urban Design Study for New Central Harbourfront Stage I Public Engagement

(Document No.: EIandFHC 19/2007)

39. The Chairman welcomed the following guests who were going to elaborate on the document:

(i) Planning Department Senior Town Planner

Mr. LI Chi-huen, Roy; Town Planner Ms TANG York-may;

(ii) Aedas. Ltd. Ms POON Ming-sum; Mr. YEUNG Sik-tong,

and

(iii) City University Professional Service Limited

Ms CHEUNG Kar-lam

108

40. Mr. LI Chi-huen, Roy introduced the background of the Urban Design Study for New Central Harbourfront Stage I Public Engagement to members.

41. Ms. POON Ming-sum introduced the contents of the Study using a powerpoint.

42. Ms. YUNG Wing-sheung, Amy stated that last year, the Chairman, Ms. LEE Kwai-chun and herself took part in the “Central Harbourfront and Me” public engagement programme on behalf of the Islands District Council, attended various meetings and provided views. She was disappointed that their views were not taken heed of seriously. In the context of Central Reclamation, there were major discrepancies between the Government and the public on the preservation of historical structures such as Queen’s Pier. The final results showed that under the present government policy, public requests would hardly be entertained. As a district representative, she was disappointed and hoped that the Government would attach greater importance to the views of the district representatives and community groups. 43. The Chairman remarked that the Central Ferry Piers were a gateway to the outlying islands. He and two other Committee members had expressed their views on the planning and development of the pier area with a view to beautifying its environment and attracting visitors. 44. Ms. LEE Kwai-chun was of the view that Planning Department’s Urban Design Study should include improvement to the transport planning around the General Post Office so as to enhance linkages between the pier and the town centre of the Central District. 45. Mr. WONG Hoi-yu agreed with the views of Ms. LEE. He also enquired whether there would be any direct access at the Central Ferry Piers in future linking the Hong Kong Macao Ferry Terminal and Wanchai. 46. Mr. LI Chi-huen, Roy noted the views of the members. The Planning Department understood the importance of the Central Ferry Piers to the outlying islands. In designing for the new Central harbourfront, the Department would examine the options for effectively enhancing public accessibility from the town centre to the piers and waterfront. As regards the traffic issues mentioned by Ms. LEE and Mr. WONG, it was envisaged that the traffic concerns could be resolved upon the completion of the proposed Road P2 and the Central-Wanchai Bypass. The linkage between the Central Ferry Piers and the HK Macao Ferry Terminal was not within the ambit of the Study. Mr. LI remarked that the Department had provided the various district offices with pamphlets of the Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront for public information and to seek views.

109

47. Mr. LEUNG Siu-tong suggested that the Planning Department should make reference to the modus operandi of the Kowloon harbourfront as a blueprint for the Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront. He also suggested that the Department should examine ways to enhance the linkages between the Central waterfront and the town centre, and to enhance the commercial value of the area. 48. In response, Mr. LI Chi-huen, Roy said that the Department’s design vision was to create diversity in the Central harbourfront. 49. The Chairman concluded that the Committee lent support to the urban design concepts for the new Central harbourfront, and expected that the Planning Department would note the views of the members and consult the Islands District Council again when further design details were available.

(Mr. LO Kwong-shing, Andy, the vice-Chairman, left the meeting during the discussion.) (Mr. LI Chi-huen, Roy, Ms. TANG York-may, Ms POON Ming-sum, Mr. YEUNG Sik-tong, and Ms CHEUNG Kar-lam left the meeting after the discussion.)

110

Confirmed Minutes of the 65th Planning Sub-Committee (PSC)

of the Land and Building Advisory Committee (LBAC) Meeting held on 18.6.2007 (Monday) at 2:30 p.m.

in Room 1707 on 17/F, North Point Government Offices

Present : Mrs. Ava Ng PlanD (Chairperson) MS. BETTY HO HKIP MR. MICHAEL CHIANG HKIA MR.ALEXANDER DUGGIE HKILA IR. DR. K. S. LAW HKIE MR. C. K. CHAN HKIS MR. JOSEPH SHEK HKCA MR. NEVIN HO AAP MR. SHUKI LEUNG REDA Ms. Mabelle Ma REDA

Mr. Edwin Chan LandsD MS. EUNICE MAK HD MR. H. M. WONG EPD MISS OPHELIA WONG PlanD MR. JIMMY LEUNG PlanD MR. RICHARD SIU PlanD (Secretary) In attendance: Mr. Jerry Austin

Mr. Derek Sun Mr. Igor Ho Mr. William Chan

PlanD Consultant for PSC Paper Consultant No. 3/2007 Consultant

Ms. Phyllis Li Mr. Roy Li Mr. Kyran Sze Ms. Santafe Poon Prof. Andrew Leung

PlanD PlanD for PSC Paper Consultant No. 4/2007 Consultant Consultant

Mr. Ivan Chung

PlanD for PSC Paper No. 5/2007

Ms. Brenda Au PlanD for PSC Paper No. 6/2007

Absent with : Mr. C. M. Li HPLB Apologies MS. SANDY NG CEDD Mr. Raymond Wu HD

111

5. Stage 1 Public Engagement for the Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront (PSC Paper No. 4/2007)

5.1 Ms. Phyllis Li briefed members on the background of the study. She said that the

study, commissioned by PlanD in March 2007, aimed to refine the existing urban design framework and to prepare planning/design briefs for the key sites in the new Central Harbourfront. Ms. Santafe Poon, the consultant, then outlined the urban design objectives, urban design issues and sustainable design assessment framework for the study area and the four proposed alternative concepts for the reconstruction of Star Ferry Clock Tower and reassembling of Queen’s Pier (QP).

5.2 Mr. Michael Chiang said that from HKIA’s point of view, Concept A1, i.e.

reassembling QP at the original location, was the preferred option out of the four proposed concepts. He commented that as Pier No. 10 was an important end of the axis extending from the City Hall Precinct, the height of the landscaped deck in key site number 3 should be suitably controlled to tie in with the design concept. To facilitate pedestrian flow from the inland to the waterfront, a continuous pedestrian link should be included. Part of this link could be in the form of a subway, if necessary. He also suggested that a landscaped deck could be provided linking key site numbers 5 and 6.

5.3 Ms. Betty Ho commented that it was not clear what the Stage 2 Public

Engagement would be about and she suggested that the planning/design briefs should also be provided for public consultation in the Stage 2 Public Engagement. She considered that the study might eventually lead to some changes to the OZP and the possibility of such changes should not be precluded at this stage. The relocation of Clock Tower/QP would inevitably affect the historical site context of these buildings and more public views should be gathered before a final option was adopted. In terms of pedestrian link, there should be a balance between at-grade and underground links. In response, Miss Ophelia Wong said that the OZP showed the land use zones and the footprint of the future building developments did not necessarily cover the whole site. One of the main tasks of the study was to prepare planning/design briefs to guide the development of the key sites. The finalised planning/design briefs could be attached to relevant land lease as part of the lease conditions.

5.4 Mr. Alexander Duggie opined that there was little architectural merit in

preserving QP. However, Concept A1 was preferred if QP was to be reassembled. On the landscaped deck in key site number 3, he suggested that the height should be gradually reduced from inland toward the piers. Mr. Nevin Ho added that Concepts A2 and B1 served little purpose, as QP would neither be reassembled by the waterfront nor at its original location. Mr. Shuki Leung asked why QP was setback from the waterfront in Concept B2. In reply, Ms. Phyllis Li explained the rationale and main features of each design concept. In terms of the setback for the reassembled QP in Concept B2, she said that it was mainly due to the consideration of marine access and the function of the relocated pier. Miss Ophelia Wong supplemented that the maximum height restriction for the

112

landscaped deck as stipulated in the OZP did not necessarily mean the maximum height to be adopted in the planning/design briefs.

5.5 Ms Mabelle Ma left the meeting at this point. 5.6 Mr. Joseph Shek said that from HKCA’s viewpoint, it was not worth to retain QP.

He suggested that there should be a fifth concept with no reassembling of QP at all. Dr. K. S. Law said that HKIE also considered reassembling of QP was not necessary. Miss Ophelia Wong remarked that their views were shared by some members of the public.

5.7 Ms. Phyllis Li further explained that the public would be further engaged in the

Stage 2 Public Engagement which would focus on formulating proposals for the refined overall urban design framework, design concepts and planning/design briefs for the key sites. The Stage 2 Public Engagement would commence around the last quarter of 2007, and the entire study was scheduled for completion by end 2007. She said that in the process of preparing the planning/design briefs for the key sites, air ventilation assessment (AVA) would be undertaken on the proposed building design/disposition. However, should individual developer propose another built-form significantly different from that adopted in the relevant planning/design briefs, the developer might need to carry out another AVA for the site(s) concerned.

5.8 The Chairperson thanked members’ suggestions and invited members to give

further comments during the course of the study.

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145