REPORT OF STAGE 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION · 2018. 1. 24. · REPORT OF STAGE 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION :...

REPORT OF STAGE 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION :COMMUNITY’S VISION FOR KAI TAK

1

Table of Contents

1 Introduction.................................................................................................... p. 2 1.1 Background 1.2 Stage 1 Public Participation : Community’s Vision for Kai Tak 1.3 Public Engagement Activities 1.4 Collaborating Organizations 1.5 Sub-committee on South East Kowloon Development Review of Harbour-front Enhancement Committee 1.6 Purpose of this Report

2 Overview of Key Comments......................................................................... p. 6 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Vision for Kai Tak 2.3 Planning Principles 2.4 Key Issues 2.5 Development Components 2.6 Implementation 2.7 Public Participation

3 Concluding Remarks..................................................................................... p. 21 3.1 Next Steps

ANNEXES

Annex A Public Engagement Activites undertaken in the Stage 1 Public Participation

ANNEX B Index of Commenters

ANNEX C List of Press Articles


Chapter 1INTRODUCTION

2

On 25.6.2002, the Chief Executive in Council approved the Kai Tak (North) and (South) Outline Zoning Plans in providing the statutory planning framework to proceed with the implementation of the South East Kowloon Development. On 9.1.2004, the Court of Final Appeal handed down its judgment on Town Planning Board’s appeal against the High Court’s ruling in respect of the draft Wan Chai North Outline Zoning Plan clarifying legal principles behind the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance, that the “presumption against reclamation” in the Harbour Area can only be rebutted by meeting the “overriding public need” test. Since the approved Outline Zoning Plans would involve a total reclamation area of about 133 hectares in the Harbour Area, a comprehensive review of the Plan is required to ensure that the development will be in full compliance with the legal requirements.

The Kai Tak Planning Review commenced in mid-July 2004. It is tasked to formulate an Outline Concept Plan for Kai Tak, with “no reclamation” as the starting point, to prepare a Preliminary Outline Development Plan and to facilitate public participation in the process. Preliminary technical assessments would be undertaken to ascertain broad feasibility of the Preliminary Outline Development Plan as input to the Engineering Feasibility Study in the next stage of the comprehensive review.

To foster community support and general consensus on the key issues and to promote ownership on the study proposals, a continuous public engagement process is required. A 3-stage Public Participation Strategy has been formulated to enable more structured public engagement activities:

• Stage 1: Community Visions for Kai Tak (i.e. study approach, planning objectives, key issues, development components and public aspirations)

• Stage 2: Discussion and comments on land use

proposals in form of Outline Concept Plans

• Stage 3: Presentation of the study findings and consolidation of the recommended development concept in form of a Preliminary Outline Development Plan.

The Stage 1 Public Participation was formally launched on 17.9.2004 after the presentation to the Town Planning Board. The main purpose of the Stage 1 Public Participation is to engage the community in the beginning of the study process to help building the community vision(s) for this major waterfront site in Victoria Harbour. This would facilitate the preparation of development concepts for the site for further discussion in the community. A wide range of public engagement activities was undertaken during the two-month public participation period.

As the first phase of public participation, the following topics are presented to the public to invite views on the vision(s) for Kai Tak:

• background leading to the review• study methodology and programme• overall public participation framework• Kai Tak’s development constraints, opportunities and

key development components

To facilitate public discussion, a Public Consultation Digest, in both English and Chinese, was prepared and widely distributed. In addition, a study website was launched to enable a convenient channel for promulgation of supporting background information, consultation materials and study reports as well as a window for the public to submit feedback during the study process. To equip the general public to formulate their comments, a pamphlet incorporating additional background information regarding strategic and district planning context, previous Kai Tak studies, existing and surrounding land uses and marine facilities, environmental problems at Kai Tak Approach Channel and major development components was compiled and widely distributed at the various consultation meetings, forums and workshop as well as uploading to study website.

1.1 Background 1.2 Stage 1 Public Participation: Community’s Vision For Kai Tak


3

A wide range of public engagement activity were undertaken in the Stage 1 Public Participation to elicit comments and suggestions. A list of the public engagement activities convened during the Stage 1 Public Participation programme is at Annex A. They included:

(a) 3 Public Forums and a Community Workshop were conducted in the Saturday afternoons of 16, 23, 30 October and 6 November 2004 at Lung Cheung Mall, Kowloon City Plaza, Telford Plaza II and Community College of City University respectively. Over 500 participants were recorded in these events. Views or proposals conveyed at these public events were reported in the subsequent public forums. Video recording of these public engagement activities were uploaded to the study website to enable general viewing.

(b) To facilitate focused discussion, over 20 briefing sessions/consultation meetings were made to various statutory and advisory bodies, professional and stakeholder groups.

(c) Exhibitions of consultation and discussion subjects, background materials and updated public comments were set up in all public engagement activities.

(d) Relevant consultation materials have been displayed in Planning Department Mobile Exhibition Centre and Hong Kong Planning and Infrastructure Exhibition Gallery to achieve widespread promulgation of Stage 1 Public Participation. Discussion seminars were also arranged for secondary schools, to introduce the Kai Tak Planning Review, as part of Planning Department’s Outreach Programme for Secondary Schools in Hong Kong.

To enable promulgation of the Stage 1 Public Participation, over 1,200 territorial and local organizations were informed of the inauguration of the exercise and invited to the relevant public activities. The intention is to arouse public engagement interest in this planning review, encourage public involvement and submission of comments.

1.3 Public Engagement Activities


4

Chapter 1INTRODUCTION

The public has also responded positively to the two-month Stage 1 Public Participation in submitting written comments, development concepts and specific proposals on Kai Tak. About 250 written submissions were received, a list of which is at Annex B. These are available for inspection at Planning Department’s Public Enquiry Counters at 17/F, North Point Government Offices, 333 Java Road, North Point and 14/F, Sha Tin Government Offices, 1 Sheung Wo Che Road, Sha Tin. A summary of the comments and responses is available at the study website (http://www.pland.gov.hk). Apart from the inaugural press conference, press briefings were also arranged for more detailed discussion on relevant subjects. The exercise was also widely reported in the newspaper. A list of the relevant press articles is at in Annex C.

A number of organizations have kindly provided advice and assistance to the study team in organizing the Public Forums and Community Workshop. Their invaluable contribution to the public engagement activities should be commended. These Collaborating Organizations include:

• Sub-committee on South East Kowloon Development Review of the Harbour-front Enhancement Committee

• Kowloon City District Council• Kwun Tong District Council• Wong Tai Sin District Council• The Conservancy Association• The Hong Kong Institute of Architects• The Hong Kong Institute of Planners• Hong Kong People’s Council for Sustainable

Development • Centre of Urban Planning and Environmental

Management, The University of Hong Kong

The study team is also very grateful to the Conveners and Panel members of the Public Forums and Community Workshop who have contributed greatly to the success of these public events, namely:

• Prof. YEUNG Yue Man• Hon. Patrick LAU Sau-shing• Dr. Peter WONG King-Keung• Dr. CHAN Wai-kwan• Mr. Vincent NG• Mr. WONG Kam-chi• Ir. WONG Kwok-keung• Mr. CHAN Chung-bun• Mr. Anthony KWAN

1.4 Collaborating Organizations


5

In March 2004, the Government announced the setting up of the Harbour-front Enhancement Committee in response to the community’s aspiration for greater involvement in planning and design of the harbour-front area. The Committee held its first meeting on 1.5.2004, which is tasked to advise the Government on planning and development of the existing and new harbour-front areas, in creating a vibrant harbour-front for the enjoyment of the community through a balanced and participatory approach.

At the second meeting held on 8.7.2004, the Harbour-front Enhancement Committee set up a sub-committee to focus on the South East Kowloon Development (SEKD) Review. The Sub-committee is to provide comments and give advice on the SEKD Review, including the public involvement strategy. The overall Public Participation Strategy for Kai Tak Planning Review and the events/activities proposed for the Stage 1 Public Participation were submitted to the Sub-committee on 1.9.2004.

After completion of the Stage 1 Public Participation programme, the public comments/proposals received were submitted to the Sub-committee for consideration in

December 2004 and February 2005. The Sub-committee considered that the community should be involved again to examine the public comments and proposals received, and to provide further views before concluding the public participation report and the preparation of the Outline Concept Plans for the next stage of public participation. The Sub-committee convened the Kai Tak Forum on 19.3.2005, with the support from the Consultants to present the public comments/proposals received in the Stage 1 Public Participation and representatives of relevant Government bureaux/departments to field questions from the participants.

The Kai Tak Forum was well attended with over 200 participants from various sectors of the community. It has provided further input to the preparation of the Stage 1 Public Participation Report and formulation of the Outline Concept Plans. A report on Kai Tak Forum, recording the event as well as highlighting the further feedbacks collected from the community, have been uploaded to the Study Website.

The main purpose of this report is to summarize the public comments received in the Stage 1 Public Participation programme, including those received in the Kai Tak Forum, and to provide responses, where appropriate. We have endeavoured to include all the comments and proposals received, which would be examined and, where appropriate, take into account in the study process. It should also be noted that the comments and responses included in this report are by no means conclusive as the process of comments collection is continuous and many comments and proposals require further investigations as part of the study process.

1.5 Sub-committee on South East Kowloon Development Review of the Harbour-front Enhancement Committee

1.6 Purpose of this Report


Chapter 2OVERVIEW OF KEY COMMENTS

6

The community has responded enthusiastically to the Stage 1 Public Participation. The comments received are, in general, seeking to enhance the waterfront developments in this part of the Metro Area, while recognising the heritage of the ex-airport operation. The community also responded positively to the public engagement activities conducted at the beginning of the planning process and also to the Kai Tak Forum as an occasion that they could exchange views on the comments and proposals received.

A summary of the key comments received is presented here to provide an overall picture of the community’s aspiration on the future development of Kai Tak. These include the comments received through written submissions, verbal comments/presentations at public forums, community workshop and briefing sessions, views collection forms, emails and those raised in the Kai Tak Forum. Our responses to these comments are also provided here. The development concepts and specific proposals received, e.g. conversion of the runway into islands, etc., would be investigated further as part of the study process to consolidate relevant input to the preparation of the Outline Concept Plan and for further discussion in the next stage of public participation. An index of the commenters is at Annex B and a summary of all comments and responses have been uploaded to the Study Website.

Given the opportunity to revisit the planning framework for Kai Tak, there is a general consensus in the community to create a new image for Hong Kong, to bring the sensation of the harbour back to the people and to enhance the quality of living. Many consider Kai Tak as one of the collective memories of Hong Kong in view of its aviation history as well as the unique shape of the previous runway that the relevant heritage elements should be preserved in the revised planning framework. Some envisage Kai Tak as a hub of sports, recreation, tourism, entertainment and quality housing development in the East Kowloon area, while others suggest to develop a sustainable green city that nurtures new urban living mode.

Some commenters point out that Kai Tak should play an important role in the territory, in the provision of major projects, e.g. cruise terminal, multi-purpose stadium, Shatin to Central Link, etc., whilst more importantly to provide a catalyst to help revitalizing and enhancing the surrounding districts. Some commenters opine that the role of Kai Tak in Hong Kong should be well-defined to help strengthening the competitiveness of Hong Kong and achieving stronger economic status in the region. In the harbour context, many commenters express the need for general enhancement to the harbour-front facilities, coherent townscape and project co-ordinations.

Our Responses

The Stage 1 Public Participation has revealed that the community is in general inspired to seek further improvement to the planning framework for Kai Tak. The community’s vision for Kai Tak is generally consistent with the development theme proposed in the current Kai Tak Outline Zoning Plans, except the need to fully address the ruling of Court of Final Appeal on harbour reclamation. The vision statement proposed in the Public Consultation Digest, i.e. “to create a vibrant and elegant city life through the provision of high quality development in this unique harbourfront site”, is also well received. It will be fine-tuned, where necessary, to reflect the community’s aspiration. The vision elements will be translated to planning principles and development themes in the process of preparing the Outline Concept Plan for Kai Tak.

2.1 Introduction 2.2 Vision for Kai Tak


7

Many commenters comment on the planning principles for Kai Tak. The future Kai Tak Development should be based on Town Planning Board’s Visions and Goals for Victoria Harbour, HEC’s Harbour Planning Principles, Sustainable Development Principles, Urban Design Guidelines, etc. Many stress the importance of people-oriented planning approach in the Kai Tak development and the integration of the new developments with the existing communities in the surrounding areas, to achieve sustainable and well-balanced developments and high-quality living. The merit of an integrated land use, environment and transport planning system is emphasized by many commenters, in view of the general concern on the conventional engineering-led approach.

Some raise concern on the need for an integrated approach in the planning and development of the waterfront areas of Victoria Harbour. To achieve the principle of bringing the harbour to the people, many commenters are supportive to the provision of an accessible and continuous public waterfront promenade in this part of Kowloon between Tsim Sha Tsui and Cha Kwo Ling.

Most commenters highlight the importance of the principles of sustainable development, in steering the conceptual/planning stage to the implementation stage of the whole development. Some commenters also suggest to develop the area into a well-landscaped, smoke-free and barrier-free environmentally friendly urban node.

On urban design, most commenters support the protection of the views towards the Kowloon ridgeline from the Kai Tak site as well as from the northern shore of Hong Kong Island. Gradation of building heights to avoid high-rise developments at the waterfront and in the runway area should be incorporated as an urban design principle for Kai Tak. Some commenters further propose to develop consistent axis and city layout in relation to the existing urban fabric in the vicinity, and to include open space provisions, natural lighting and building setback in the urban design framework.

Most agree that emphasis should be placed in retaining the local culture and the historical past of Kai Tak as an airport. The retention of the Kai Tak runway, with its unique shape, as a historical landmark should be treated as a major urban design principle.

Our Responses

The importance of the different planning principles raised in the Stage 1 Public Participation is fully recognized. These principles including Town Planning Board’s Visions and Goals for Victoria Harbour, HEC’s Harbour Planning Principles, Sustainable Development Principles, Urban Design Guidelines, etc, will be adhered to as far as practicable in the study process. They will also be consolidated and promulgated in the Stage 2 Public Participation for further discussion in the community.

2.3 Planning Principles



8

The following summarises the key issues that the commenters have expressed concerns on:

Reclamation

There is general consensus not to pursue further reclamation in the Harbour Area. Some local residents stress not to reclaim further in the Kowloon Bay area. However, some commenters have no objection to small-scale reclamation for the general enhancement of the waterfront area, e.g. provision of public promenade and conversion of elevated highway structures into tunnels; providing essential facilities, e.g. public pier; and addressing environmental problem, e.g. the water quality problems at Kai Tak Approach Channel.

Our Responses

In accordance with the principle of presumption against reclamation enshrined in the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance, the Study has adopted a “no reclamation” development scenario as a starting point. Any development proposals that would involve reclamation in the Harbour Area are required to fulfil the “overriding public need” test as laid down by the Court of Final Appeal.

A prudent approach will be adopted in the study process to ensure that reclamation proposal, if any, is well justified and supported by assessments on the need, extent and alternative aspects. The project proponents are supported by relevant information so that they can satisfy with themselves if there is an overriding public need in these projects. The Study Team will take advice from the Department of Justice in the process. The whole process including the decisions as to whether there is a compelling and present public need, whether there is any reasonable alternative, and whether the proposed reclamation extent is the minimum will be clearly documented and substantiated by cogent and convincing materials. It is the responsibility of the proponents of individual facilities (i.e. the client bureaux/departments) to prove, with engineering input from the relevant works departments, that the proposals they put forward will meet the “over-riding public need test”.

Kai Tak Approach Channel

The environmental problem at the Kai Tak Approach Channel is a major concern to the community. Some commenters consider the shape of the runway and the extensive water bodies at the channel are unique design features that they should be retained and the incumbent environmental problems to be fully tackled. Some opine that appropriate mitigation methods should be identified to address the existing environmental problems and that it is premature to decide at this stage whether to reclaim the channel. Some consider reclamation as the last resort unless there is no other cost-effective solution to tackle the environmental problem.

Some commenters consider that reclamation of the channel is a permanent and possibly a cost-effective solution to this problem, however, this should satisfy the legal requirement. They consider that it is worth further exploring this option. Many also opine that reclamation at the channel could improve land supply as well as provide flexibility in setting out the layout for Kai Tak.

Some commenters propose that subject to improvement to the water quality of the Approach Channel, the water body could be opened up for water sports activities, water ecological park or aquatic stadium.

2.4 Key Issues


9

Our Responses

Regarding the current environmental conditions, the Baseline Review of the Study reveals that the Approach Channel is currently highly polluted and would not be suitable for any contact or non-contact type water-based activities due to poor water quality. The contaminated sediment within the Approach Channel has also lead to odour problem.

In the light of the Court of Final Appeal’s judgment regarding reclamation in the Harbour Area, the Environment, Transport and Works Bureau (ETWB) has advised that reclamation at the Approach Channel could not be justified on environmental ground alone, as there are alternatives to address the environmental problems. To enable a balance consideration on the approaches to tackle the environmental problems at the Approach Channel, the technical investigation will examine in broad term the options of reclamation and non-reclamation approaches. The findings of these preliminary investigations would be released for discussion with the community in the Stage 2 Public Participation on Outline Concept Plan.

Under the “no reclamation” scenario, the public, in general, is inspired to turn the Approach Channel into positive attribute of Kai Tak to allow suitable beneficial uses and for general amenity purposes. This would, however, need to tackle the incumbent environmental problem in total. The practicability of converting the Approach Channel for amenity and recreation purpose would need to be justified by in-depth engineering study and financial analysis.

Subject to findings of the preliminary and broad technical investigations in the Outline Concept Plan stage, different approaches and their associated land use, urban design and cost implications would be discussed further in the Stage 2 Public Participation.

Interface with Surrounding Districts

There is general concern in the community on the interface and connectivity issues with the surrounding districts. Many urge for an early redevelopment of Kai Tak and perceive the redevelopment of the ex-airport site as an opportunity to improve the living quality of the surrounding districts, through for instance, the provision of open space, Government, Institution and Community facilities and infrastructure. There is the concern from the local community, that the re-development should not bring new traffic problems to the neighbouring districts. The interface with the surrounding water bodies, connectivity issue and the townscape quality when viewed from the other side of the harbour is also emphasized by the professional bodies. Some opine that the existing building conditions and physical environment of the adjoining areas should be taken into account such that the revised development scheme could bring about redevelopment and revitalization of these areas. They consider Kai Tak as a solution space to assist redevelopment of obsolete housing estates in the surrounding districts. There are also comments that the future Kai Tak Development should assist the transformation of Kwun Tong, Kowloon Bay, Kowloon City and San Po Kong areas into business areas.

Our Responses

The importance to create synergy between the existing and future developments, through provision of vehicular and pedestrian linkages, complimentary land uses and coherent urban design is fully recognized. The options for Outline Concept Plan under preparation will include conceptual proposals to demonstrate how these concerns could be addressed. They will be promulgated for public discussion in the Stage 2 Public Participation.



10

Interface with Other Studies

Some commenters opine that the re-planning of Kai Tak should be considered in the strategic planning context, including the on-going Hong Kong 2030 Study, which would formulate a broad strategic framework for the planning of Hong Kong over the next 25 to 30 years. It may be premature to commit development projects in Kai Tak without giving due regard to the strategic planning framework, especially on the territorial population and housing demand aspects. Moreover, the various strategic initiatives investigated under the Hong Kong 2030 Study and the Sustainable Development Study should be taken into account in the Study. Some commenters also point out that the implications of other studies, e.g. Study on Building Height Restrictions for Kowloon Bay and Kwun Tong Business Areas, on the Kai Tak Planning Review should be reviewed and taken into account, where appropriate.

Our Responses

Valuable comments have been received through the public consultation exercises under the HK2030 Study and Sustainable Development Study, which would serve useful input to guide the Kai Tak Planning Review. Some of the suggestions proposed by these strategic studies, e.g. premier office node, quality living space, will further be investigated in this Study. Beside, the strategic planning frameworks prepared in the past years have envisaged Kai Tak as a new urban node in this part of Kowloon, though the scope and scale of development have been fine-tuned gradually in the subsequent district planning and development studies. Though this Study is tasked to revisit the current master plan to address recent court judgment, a prudent approach would be adopted to ensure the overall sustainability of the long-term development of the Kai Tak site. The Urban Design Guidelines in Hong Kong Planning Standards & Guidelines and the various urban design initiatives to incorporate building height restrictions in the waterfront development would be taken into account in preparing the Outline Concept Plan.


11

Tourism, Sports & Recreation Hub

Some commenters consider that Kai Tak should be developed into a tourism, sports and recreation hub for leisure activities, public entertainment and sport events in the East Kowloon area to contrast with the arts and cultural hub in West Kowloon. Major tourism and recreation components can include hotel, shopping centre, heritage museum, water recreation centre, venue for triathlon training and events, fishermen’s wharf, aviation centre, theme park, theme shopping and eating streets/restaurants, etc. They also stress that the Kai Tak development should strike a balance between the promotion of tourism and the continuation of existing maritime activities at the waterfront area.

Our Responses

These types of development are consistent with the land use theme proposed in the current development scheme. Apart from the proposed key development components, which are discussed in subsequent paragraphs, the development concepts and proposals received in the Stage 1 Public Participation will be investigated further taking into account their feasibility and suitability with the development visions/themes in preparing the Outline Concept Plan for Stage 2 Public Participation.

Cruise Terminal

Many commenters support the development of an international cruise terminal at Kai Tak Point to promote tourism and enhance the berthing facilities in Hong Kong for cruise ships. Supporting tourism facilities, such as entertainment, retail and recreational related uses should be provided to complement the cruise terminal development. There is also a suggestion to develop the whole runway area into a major cruise centre to accommodate 6 to 12 berths to cater for long term growth. However, there are also general concerns on the associated environmental impacts of the cruise terminal on the surrounding areas and justification on the location of this territorial-scale tourism project in Kai Tak.

Our Responses

The recently updated “Cruise Market Study for Hong Kong” has concluded that Hong Kong is likely to require an additional berth for cruise ship in the medium term and one to two additional berths in the longer term to sustain its development as a regional cruise hub. The current Study will devise viable options for development of the cruise terminal facilities in the Outline Concept Plan for Stage 2 Public Participation taking into account the pros and cons of different berthing configuration options.

Multi-Purpose Stadium

Many commenters support the proposal for a large-scale multi-purpose stadium to host international sports and cultural/entertainment events, as Hong Kong is lacking behind on this major venue as a world-class city. Kai Tak, with the support of suitable transportation network and infrastructural facilities is considered a suitable location for provision of a modern urban stadium. Some commenters, however, raise their concerns on the possible noise impacts, traffic congestion problem and the nuisance to the surrounding areas, the location and anticipated utilization of the proposed multi-purpose stadium facilities. To achieve better utilization of scarce land resource in the urban area, some commenters suggest to re-locate the stadium to the area in proximity to the railway network in the New Territories.

Our Responses

The Home Affair Bureau (“HAB”) has confirmed the requirement of a multi-purpose stadium at Kai Tak and advised that the previous studies on this major venue have ascertained Kai Tak as a suitable location and also reaffirmed the broad technical feasibility of the project. The completed feasibility study on stadium has recommended the development of a retractable roof as part of the stadium to address possible noise problem as well as to allow the flexibility in the organization of events, though this may have cost implications. This Study is therefore tasked to fine-tune the location and layout for the proposed stadium.

2.5 Development Components



12

Housing Development

There are divergent views on the type and scale of housing developments in the Kai Tak area. Some commenters call for a balanced mix of public and private housing developments, while some, in particular, the development industry consider the Kai Tak site, taking advantage of its elongated water frontage, should be developed for high quality housing. Some commenters propose Kai Tak as a solution space for decanting housing to facilitate the redevelopment process in the surrounding areas.

Some commenters point out that the redevelopment of the Kai Tak site would involve a very long development programme that the planning framework should be flexible enough to respond to future changes in the planning circumstances, e.g. demand of additional housing land. Also the cost and benefit of the development options should be carefully weighed and presented to the public to enable them to discuss further which particular option would be in the best interest of Hong Kong on a long-term basis.

While there is general consensus in the community to pursue quality development in Kai Tak, many consider that the development intensity should be lowered to avoid repeating the experience in recent new towns, e.g. Tseung Kwan O. Some consider that Kai Tak should not be planned into another property-led development, resulting in blocks of high-rise buildings, as there is no prompt demand for housing.

Our Responses

The Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines have set out the development intensity for different types of housing development. In general, lower development intensity is envisaged for New Development Areas. The merits in lowering the development intensity to improve the built environment have been highlighted in the Hong Kong 2030 Study and the Final Report of Team Clean. The Further Urban Design Study for Planning and Development of South East Kowloon has also proposed to lower the development intensity in Kai Tak to achieve overall improvement to the townscape.

This Study would approach the Outline Concept Plan with a medium plot ratio to start with and to explore higher plot ratio at locations in close proximity to railway stations to capitalize on the transportation potential. A lower plot ratio would be investigated at prime waterfront site. The objective is to investigate a variety of development intensity to create more interesting urban design.

Office Node

Some commenters cast doubts on the need to introduce a new office centre in Kai Tak in view of the supply of office premises in the San Po Kong, Kowloon Bay and Kwun Tong Business Areas in the vicinity. However, some consider Kai Tak having the potential to be developed as a premier commercial/office centre to attract major international enterprises to set up new business in Hong Kong, as well as to relieve the demand of office space in the existing business districts in Central and Tsim Sha Tsui. Some also suggest Kai Tak as the location for the future Government offices.

Our Responses

Connectivity to existing business districts, compatibility with existing and planned land uses, availability of mass transport facilities are some of the considerations in setting up a new office node away from existing business districts. These considerations would be explored in developing the different options of the Outline Concept Plan to assess the suitability to plan for a new office centre in this part of Kowloon.


13

Metropolitan Park The original proposal of developing a Metropolitan Park in Kai Tak is well supported. There are also ideas to develop it into themed parks, e.g. wildlife park, botanical garden, forest-like park and ecological park, etc, and emphasizing the need to pursue a design of its own style, instead of stereo-type park design. They share the common view that proper linkage should be provided connecting the Metropolitan Park, waterfront promenade and the surrounding areas.

Our Responses

The provision of a Metropolitan Park in this part of Kowloon is consistent with the recent greening policy to enhance the overall landscape value of the Kai Tak Development. Apart from retaining this component, further green corridors could be considered in the major transport corridors. Provision of open space and land scale would be examined in the study, which would be promulgated for discussion in the next stage of public participation in the context of Outline Concept Plan.

Waterfront Uses In general, the commenters urge for beautification of the existing waterfront to uplift the area’s image and to enhance relevant facilities for public enjoyment. Various ideas for the waterfront were received, including a network of greening, cycle tracks, water taxi services, water recreation centre, man-made beach, marina, yacht club, shoreline village, public piers and landing steps. Many commenters reiterate the proposals to provide a continuous waterfront promenade connecting Tsim Sha Tsui, through Kai Tak, to Lei Yue Mun area to improve the accessibility to the harbour-front.

Our Responses

These public comments are consistent with the objectives of the Study to enhance the accessibility of the existing and planned waterfront areas as well as to improve the overall attractiveness of the area with a view to contributing to the overall enhancement of harbour-

front of Victoria Harbour. This issue will be examined as part of the study process and be promulgated for discussion in the next stage of public participation in the context of Outline Concept Plan.

Aviation Facilities

Some aviation groups advocate the introduction of a new civil airfield (with a 1000-metre long runway) in Kai Tak to promote aviation activities and related education, pilot training, tourism as well as local and regional air transport. They also propose other tourist attractions, a helipad, land-sea-air communication museum, light aircraft aerial sight-seeing flying, hot air balloons sight-seeing, themed restaurants, etc. Some suggest to retain/expand the existing Hong Kong Aviation Club facilities in Kai Tak. The revised proposal of an elevated civil airfield with reduced scale (about 800m in length) has also been submitted by the aviation groups in late April 2005.

However, some commenters are concerned about the environmental impact (including air and noise pollution) of an airfield, a heliport and other aviation uses in Kai Tak and the substantial land-take of these facilities would sterilize the waterfront for public use. Sufficient aviation control should be incorporated to ensure the safety of these activities.

Our Responses

It is well acknowledged that the airfield proposal [with a runway of about 1000 m in length], championed by the aviation groups, is intended to promote aviation development in Hong Kong. As advised by Civil Aviation Department (CAD), the re-introduction of an airfield in the Kai Tak area would require adequate measures to be put in place to safeguard and facilitate the operations. The control of obstructions may have constraints on the building heights in the vicinity of the proposed runway and it may also impose restrictions and limitations on the runway operation such as circuit flying over water and restricted to the airspace over the eastern part of Victoria Harbour.



14

To address the safety aspect on the surrounding areas, CAD also advises that, apart from the obstacle limitation requirements, the proposed airfield would need to satisfy stringent aerodrome licensing requirements and its operation be placed under air traffic control. Besides, with the relocation of the airport to Chek Lap Kok, the perception of the public towards flying activities and aircraft noises in the vicinity of Kai Tak might have changed. Detailed environmental impact assessment for the proposed airfield is required to ascertain the feasibility of the proposal.

In main, the airfield proposal will have the following implications to the Kai Tak Development.

(a) Following the closure of Kai Tak Airport, the previous building height restrictions imposed in the Kowloon Peninsula has been lifted and a number of high-rise buildings have already been built in surrounding districts and further high-rise buildings are expected in the coming years. The impacts of these high-rise buildings to the operation of an airfield at Kai Tak have to be investigated in detail. The application of obstacle limitation requirement would limit the development potential of the area and the economic losses due to such restriction could be substantial. The environmental impacts arising from the airfield would also require detailed assessment.

(b) On the seaward side, the obstacle limitation requirements would limit the vessel heights from 3m to 45m throughout Kowloon Bay and Victoria Harbour (Hung Hom to Sai Wan Ho section). The proposed cruise terminal will be in conflict with the runway, which, based on Tourism Commission’s requirement, is intended to receive cruise liners of 62 to 65m high. This would require relocation of the cruise terminal outside Kowloon Bay and hinder its location within the Victoria Harbour.

(c) On the landside, the obstacle limitation requirements would limit the maximum building height along the runway area from 5mPD at the airstrip to 105mPD [about 35 storeys] at the north western end of the North Apron area. Comparing with the current OZP,

this requirement could reduce the total domestic GFA in the affected area by about 53%. Besides, the obstacle limitation may affect the development potential of the Sung Wong Toi Road area and interface with recently completed redevelopment projects therein.

(d) For the revised proposal of an elevated runway, as advised by CAD, it would still limit the vessels heights along the southern portion of the ex-runway and have implications on the operation of a cruise terminal in the area as well as its possible future expansion. On the landside, it would limit the maximum building height along the runway area and as a result constrain the development potential of the Kai Tak site. CAD also raises great concern on its feasibility, given the lack of similar precedent elsewhere and international requirement.

Since the airfield proposal would have implications to the operation of the cruise terminal and constrain the development potential of the affected area, it would not be included in the Outline Concept Plans for the Stage 2 Public Participation.

Marine Facilities

There are polarized views between the marine facilities operators and the general public (especially the residents in the surrounding districts) on whether the existing marine facilities should be retained, decommissioned or reprovisioned elsewhere in the territory. Many operators of the existing marine facilities strongly object to decommissioning of the existing typhoon shelters and the public cargo working areas in the vicinity of Kai Tak. They consider that these maritime facilities are of vital importance to the general industry and mid-stream operators in Hong Kong. In addition, since the existing typhoon shelters in the harbour area would be insufficient to cater for all marine vessels during the typhoon seasons, the typhoon shelters in the vicinity of Kai Tak may be maintained. If these marine facilities are affected by the future development in Kai Tak, there should be reprovisioning of similar facilities in suitable size and location.


15

However, some commenters consider that the existing typhoon shelters and public cargo working areas may not be compatible with the future tourism and leisure developments in Kai Tak. They consider that the Government should consider relocating these marine facilities outside Kai Tak so that the water bodies could be utilized for other beneficial uses such as marina, yacht club and various types of water sports facilities. Some of them suggest that the typhoon shelters at their present locations could be retained and enhanced as a special feature of Hong Kong for tourism purposes.

Our Responses

The Kai Tak site is surrounded by a number of marine facilities, such as typhoon shelters and public cargo working areas (PCWAs). Depending on the types of development and infrastructure to be provided in Kai Tak, most of the facilities would be affected. For example, the provision of Road T2 in the waterfront area of Kwun Tong, might affect the operation of the PCWAs and Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter. The provision of public promenade at the Kwun Tong waterfront area would require decommissioning of the Kwun Tong PCWA. The two typhoon shelters may also be affected by measures to improve water circulation in Kai Tak Approach Channel. It is, however, noted that typhoon shelter is an essential port facility to protect the vessel during typhoon seasons and the future of PCWAs should tie in with the overall policy on port operation. The existing operators have requested to maintain the PCWAs whereas the local community advocates for their removal. According to Master Plan 2020 for Hong Kong Port, PCWAs are identified as the least efficient port facility with questionable economic benefit and it is recommended that three out of the existing eight PCWAs are to be phased out progressively by 2020. Economic Development and Labour Bureau (EDLB) has advised that any proposed closure of PCWAs must take into account the prevailing economic situation, impacts on community and political sensitivity and they have no plan to close any PCWA at this stage.

Some marine facilities, e.g. Air-Field Surface Detection Equipment Station (ASDE Radar) and other mooring facilities, are required to support the port operations.

Apart from the vehicular ferry pier, which is required to service dangerous good transportation, other passenger ferry piers would depend on the current operations.

Besides, the existing chlorine trans-shipment dock at Kowloon Bay is incompatible with the developments planned in the Kai Tak area, that the Outline Concept Plan will assume its relocation in future.

Different options on the retention or decommission of the maritime facilities will be explored in the process of developing the Outline Concept Plan for further discussion in the community in the Stage 2 Public Participation.

Refuse Transfer Station and Public Filling Barging Point There are strong concerns on the land use compatibility of the proposed refuse transfer station /public filling barging point with the quality developments in Kai Tak. Local residents have strong reservation to locate these facilities in Kwun Tong waterfront especially in proximity to the residential areas. Many commenters view that they should be located away from the Kai Tak area.

Some of them comment that there should be assessment to ascertain whether these facilities have to be located in Kai Tak and whether they would cause any adverse environmental problems to the existing and future land uses in their immediate surrounding areas.

Our Responses

According to Environmental Protection Department’s (EPD) advice, the proposed refuse transfer station is planned to serve the long term waste management for the region. It is required to replace the existing Kowloon Bay Transfer Station which with limited capacity will reach its end of serviceable life in 2010. The new refuse transfer station is an essential element of infrastructure to serve the local community, bringing to them an environmentally friendly means of handling the waste generated in the East Kowloon area, including Kai Tak. A waterfront site is required so that the waste could be


16

transported to the WENT Landfill by sea and thus reduce road traffic as well as relieve the pressure on the SENT Landfill. It has been demonstrated in a recently completed study “Review of Costs and Benefits of Refuse Transfer Station Network” by the EPD that marine transfer is a cost effective and more environmentally friendly mode of long distance transportation than road haul. With the expiry of the current contract in 2005, the Kowloon Bay Refuse Transfer Station would be temporarily closed for improvement works and used for waste recycling projects, and re-opened after completion of these works. The proposed Refuse Transfer Station site to be identified by the Study is expected to be a long-term project.

The Baseline Review of the Study has examined the requirements of the proposed refuse transfer station and has found that it will not be compatible with other waterfront developments envisage in the Kai Tak area. The study has identified the Kaolin mine site at Cha Kwo Ling, in the eastern part of the study area, as a possible site for the proposed RTS. While there are public concerns over the environmental impact of such facility, it is considered necessary that the proposed RTS, if agreed, should be designed, built and operated in an environmentally friendly manner such that it could be acceptable to the local community. This proposal needs to be investigated further in the study process. The proposed RTS site would be promulgated for further discussion in the community in the Stage 2 Public Participation.

Concerned departments have indicated that public filling barging point is no longer required within the Study Area.

Transportation and Pedestrian Facilities Many commenters suggest environmentally friendly transport system to connect Kai Tak with the surrounding areas. There is general preference for rail-based transit system, e.g. monorail or light rail, with an extended service area by provision of automated people mover. Some commenters also point out that the railway-based system should be completed in time to tie in with the population in-take of Kai Tak such that the new community would be well serviced by transportation system.

Some commenters propose to construct a bridge for pedestrians, bicycles and monorail linking up Kai Tak and Kwun Tong area. Many commenters do not support the construction of elevated highways along the waterfront. They prefer to have more sunken roads and submerge the whole Road T2 alignment. Some commenters consider that the current study should also target to improve rather than overload the existing road network in the surrounding districts.

There is also concern in the community that the elevated Kwun Tong By-pass would impose constraints to the transformation of Kwun Tong into a business area as intended under the current Outline Zoning Plan. There is suggestion that it should be replaced by a less intrusive structure, so that the waterfront area along Kwun Tong could be opened up for public enjoyment.

Many commenters request a comprehensive pedestrian system, with traffic free zones and landscaped corridors linking up the focal points in Kai Tak and its surrounding areas.



17

Our Responses

The transportation system to connect Kai Tak with the strategic road and railway systems and with the surrounding districts, as well as the internal transport system, including also the pedestrian networks, is subject to investigation in the study. The Outline Concept Plan under preparation will explore different options of the Shatin to Central Link facilities traversing Kai Tak, the alignment for Central Kowloon Route and Road T2, road connections to surrounding districts and the internal road system. The suitability of using environmentally friendly transport mode in the public transport system will also be considered taking into account the scale of development, type of land uses, design population and the timing of population in-take in Kai Tak area.

The demolition and reconstruction of Kwun Tong Bypass is not a cost effective solution. The Administration is of the view that the suggested reprovisioning of the Kwun Tong By-pass by less intrusive structure e.g. by tunnel at the Kwun Tong waterfront would likely involve reclamation and subject to the “over-riding public need” test. Besides, the reconstruction may involve land resumption of affected areas, adverse traffic disruption during the construction period, and other complicated technical issues, which would require dedicated engineering feasibility study, in particular, high construction and maintenance costs involved. To have to write off the Bypass that had a design life of more than 100 years but only been used for 15 years would need to be fully justified.

In light of the above considerations, the re-provision of a submerged Kwun Tong Bypass is considered not viable and will not be taken for further consideration in the study process.

Development Concepts and Proposals

The development concepts and proposals received are listed below:

List of development concepts• Aviation and Tourism Hub• International Cruise Centre for 6 -12 berths • “Kai Tak Archipelago”• Kai Tak Environmentally Friendly City (“ ”)• “Kai Tak Landing” • Leisure/ Indigenous Culture Conservation District • “Leisure Island” • Leisure & Recreation Node • Land Use Concept Plan for Kai Tak • World Exposition• 9 Concept Plans produced at the Community

Workshop

List of development ideas/proposals

Recreation/ tourism related:•“ Aviation Development Centre (at the existing Hong

Kong Aviation Club site) •“ Dragon Ball City” (“ ”) with a “Dragon Ball”

tower (“ ”) • Entertainment centre (e.g. Las-Vegas type development

with casinos and 6-star hotels, “Red Light” district, soho-type entertainment centre)

• Formula 1 or 3 race course• 18-hole or 27-hole golf course• Hotels• Museums with various themes e.g. aviation, military,

Chinese history & local heritage • Preservation of Air Traffic Control Tower• Sailing facilities, marina & yacht club• Theme/Amusement parks• Triathlon training venue • Underground shopping streets, large-scale shopping

centre, waterfront alfresco dining



18

G/IC related proposals:• Cultural town hall• Government village• Home for the elderly/hospital• School/university village

Transport/Infrastructure related proposals:• Bridge connecting Kai Tak to Hong Kong Island• Ferry services between Kai Tak and Central/Wanchai • Ferry service from Kai Tak to Macau• Kwun Tong Bypass tunnel• Road connection proposal (Rhythm Garden)

Others:• Designating the whole Kai Tak runway for container

port backup, dangerous goods storage and cargo handling area to enhance overall efficiency in operation and improve overall harbour planning

• International market place/exhibition centre • Multi-media/digital visual centre for IT research &

development/ exhibition centre, youth centre for military training, religion, counselling etc.

The above development ideas and proposals are deposited at the Planning Enquiry Counters of Planning Department for general reference.

Our Responses

A wide range of proposals, in the form of ideas, specific suggestions as well as concept plans have been received. Many of these proposals are inspirational to help broaden the thinking spectrum for possible developments in Kai Tak. Most of the ideas and proposals, e.g. aviation development centre, museum, hotel, housing, office, sport venues etc. would be investigated further in the plan preparation stage that an appropriate planning framework could be formulated to allow the flexibility to pursue these possible projects in the implementation stage. Some of the proposed use can be incorporated into “G/IC” or other related zoning in the development plan. The suggested development concepts/proposals will be further investigated taking into account their feasibility and suitability with the development visions/themes in preparing the Outline Concept Plan for Stage 2 Public Participation.

Proposals such as 6-12 berths cruise centre, Formula 1 race course, 18-hole or 27-hole golf course and port backup/dangerous good depot/cargo handling area, would require very extensive land area. These proposals, if incorporated into Kai Tak Development, would impose constraints to accommodate other land uses which are considered more compatible with the planning visions and principles confirmed in the public participation process. These ideas will not be explored further in the Study.


19

Many commenters comment that the private sector should play a more active role in the development and management of the waterfront related facilities. Some even propose that these projects should be financed by private sector consortium in an open tender process. The development process should be transparent including publication of relevant development plans so that the entire community can comment on them.

Many of the commenters consider that stronger partnership between the Government, private sector and the community should be fostered to achieve overall consensus in the development proposals. Some propose to set up alternative institutional mechanism e.g. Kai Tak Harbour Development Authority, to take charge of all planning and development matters of Kai Tak and its surrounding areas. The Authority would administer the provision of services and infrastructure within the area, as well as future implementation and management matters.

Some commenters also suggest phased development of Kai Tak in view of the changes in planning circumstances over a long implementation period of 20-30 years.

Our Responses

The Comprehensive Review of South East Kowloon Development is currently at the planning review phase. The comments regarding implementation issues would be examined in the later phase of the Comprehensive Review.

The Harbour Plan Study completed in 2003 considers that a Harbour Authority based on overseas model may not be suitable to Hong Kong. Whilst the study considers it necessary to improve co-ordination amongst concerned bureaux/departments in implementing the Harbour Plan proposals, it recommends setting up a high level committee in the government to coordinate the implementation of the proposals put forward in the Harbour Plan, e.g. project office for West Kowloon Cultural District.

In any circumstances, the institutional and implementation issues would be reviewed in the course of the Harbour Plan Study Review now being undertaken by the Harbour Plan Review Sub-committee of the HEC.

2.6 Implementation



20

2.7 Public Participation

The approach to conduct public participation at the beginning of the planning process is well supported by the community. Since the Kai Tak site would involve a very long development process, many commenters consider it necessary to adopt a pro-active approach to consult and involve the public throughout the planning and development process. Apart from the conventional approach to gather opinions from stakeholder groups, it should foster, community support and general consensus on the key issues and promote a more direct public participation process.

However, there are also concerns that the continuous process of public participation would delay the redevelopment of Kai Tak. Some commenters point out that there is already consensus in the community about future developments in Kai Tak as established in the previous studies. They consider the process could be expedited by going direct to the plan preparation stage and the public be consulted on a revised development scheme. Besides, some point out that due to sectoral interest, it would be difficult for the community to select a preferred option. They consider a recommended scheme should be put forward in the Stage 2 Public Participation for consultation.

Some commenters suggest that comments and proposals raised in the consultation process should be evaluated in a systematic and scientific way. They consider that the major findings of the Stage 1 Public Participation exercise should be reported accordingly so as to encourage the public participation in the subsequent stage of the Study.

Many commenters request for more background information on Kai Tak, regarding the strategic and district planning context, proposed population quantum, infrastructure constraints, importance of the competing land uses, rationales for the key development components and that for a new CBD/ financial centre. Being equipped by detailed information, the public could prepare more substantial comments on Kai Tak. Some commenters propose to broaden the coverage of the public participation activities to the community at large as Kai Tak involved harbour-wide and territory-wide issues.

Some commenters also suggest that in order to encourage high standard urban design in Kai Tak, a series of design competitions could be arranged to enable participation from different sectors in the community.

Our Responses

Valuable experience has been gained in the Stage 1 Public Participation in working with the public. This pro-active public participation approach will be maintained throughout the study process. In order to facilitate public involvement in the process, the Study Team will continue to work with the non-government organisations and local District Councils to organize workshops and forums with a view to building public consensus and ownership in the study process.

In order to balance the interests of different sectors of the community, it is considered prudent to conduct an envisioning process at the start of the study so that the aspirations and concerns of the community can be established early and communicated, as input to the study process.

The comments and proposals received during the Stage 1 Public Participation, together with the further views received in the Kai Tak Forum, will be published in this Report and are available for public inspection at Planning Department’s Public Enquiry Counters. Comments and proposals together with government’s initial responses have been shared with the public in the HEC meetings and the Kai Tak Forum. All comments and proposals received will be considered and evaluated systematically against the planning principles stated in para.2.3 above.

In the next stage of public participation, different Outline Concept Plans with support of more comprehensive information will be put forward for discussion in the community. Visually enhanced presentation materials will be prepared to facilitate a better understanding and appreciation of the development concepts behind. The programme of the Stage 1 Public Participation will be fine-tuned, in consultation with HEC Sub-committee on SEKD Review, as basis to prepare the roadmap of the Stage 2 Public Participation.


Chapter 3CONCLUDING REMARKS

21

3. Next Steps

The Stage 1 Public Participation programme for the Kai Tak Planning Review ended in late November 2004. The public engagement activities have raised the general awareness of the key development issues of Kai Tak, enabled the community to put forward their development visions, and more importantly developed a sound basis for a continued dialogue with the general public and stakeholder groups about planning and development of Kai Tak. The findings gathered under the Stage 1 Public Participation programme will serve an important input to the subsequent stage of the Study.

The Kai Tak Forum initiated by the HEC Sub-committee on SEKD Review has provided the opportunity to discuss with the community the comments and proposals received in the Stage 1 Public Participation and the responses from the Consultants and Government bureaux/departments. It has also gathered further feedbacks from the community on the development theme and landuse components in the preparation of the Outline Concept Plan.

The next phase of the Planning Review is to formulate different Outline Concept Plans for Kai Tak, taking into account the public comments and proposals received and relevant technical consideration. The Outline Concept Plans will be consolidated and presented to the public in the Stage 2 Public Participation programme, which is scheduled to take place in November, 2005.

Annex A

Public Engagement Activities undertaken in the Stage 1 Public

Participation

Annex A: Public Engagement Activities Undertaken in the Stage 1 Public Participation The following activities and events have been undertaken in the Stage 1 Public Participation: I. Publicity Activities

• Press Conference on 17 September 2004 • Consultation Digest (1) and Information Pamphlets • Invitation Letters and Posters • Exhibition at the Public Forums and Workshop • Study Website

II. Public Events List of Public Forums & Community Workshop

Date Events Location

16 October 2004 Public Forum (1) Lung Cheung Mall, Wong Tai Sin

23 October 2004 Public Forum (2) Kowloon City Plaza, Kowloon City

30 October 2004 Public Forum (3) Telford Plaza II, Kowloon Bay

6 November 2004 Community Workshop – Your Vision for Kai Tak

Community College of City University (Telford Annex), Kowloon Bay

List of Consultation Meetings/Briefings Date Organization Abbreviations 1. 1 September 2004 Harbour-front Enhancement Committee Sub-

committee on South East Kowloon Development Review

HEC Sub-committee on SEKD

2. 17 September 2004 Town Planning Board TPB 3. 23 September 2004 Kwun Tong District Council KTDC 4. 11 October 2004 Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation KCRC 5. 14 October 2004 Kowloon City District Council – Housing &

Infrastructure Committee KCDC – H&IC

6. 19 October 2004 Planning Sub-Committee/Land & Building Advisory Committee

PSC/LBAC

7. 20 October 2004 Harbour-Enhancement Committee Sub-committee on South East Kowloon Development Review

HEC Sub-committee on SEKD

8. 21 October 2004 The Real Estate Developers Association REDA 9. 26 October 2004 Sham Shui Po District Council SSPDC 10. 26 October 2004 Hong Kong Institute of Planners HKIP 11. 27 October 2004 MTR Corporation MTRC 12. 8 November 2004 Advisory Council on the Environment ACE 13. 9 November 2004 Wong Tai Sin District Council WTSDC 14. 12 November 2004 Provisional Local Vessels Advisory Committee PLVAC 15. 12 November 2004 The Save Kai Tak Campaign SKTC 16. 18 November 2004 Land & Building Advisory Committee LBAC 17. 19 November 2004 Swire Properties Ltd Swire 18 24 November 2004 Kai Tak Planning and Development

Concerned Group KTPDCG

19. 25 November 2004 Transport Advisory Committee TAC 20. 17 February 2005 Victoria Harbour Typhoon Shelters Concerned

Group VHTSCG

Annex B

Index of Commenters

Annex B: Index of Commenters

I INDEX OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Date Name Organization 1. -- Allonda Watch Ltd. Allonda Watch Ltd. 2. 18 September 2004 Anonymous -- 3. 29 October 2004 Au, Joanlin JADL Design Ltd. 4. 1 October 2004 Baker, Nick -- 5. -- Bleistein & Co. (HK) Ltd. Bleistein & Co. (HK) Ltd. 6. 5 October 2004 Borg, Peter -- 7. 21 October 2004 Brooke, Margaret Professional Property

Services Ltd. 8. 21 October 2004 Business and Professionals

Federation of Hong Kong Business and Professionals Federation of Hong Kong

9. 30 September 2004 Captain S.K. Gupta -- 10. 29-December 2004 Chan, Alex W.K. -- 11. 21 October 2004 Chan, C.K. -- 12. 19 November 2004 Chan, Corrin Residents of Laguna City 13. 21 October 2004 Chan, Elly -- 14. 25 October 2004 Chan, Franky -- 15. 18 November 2004 Chan, Jor Kin Kenneth KC Surveyors/KCS Projects 16. 11 October 2004 Chan, Loong Geoffrey -- 17. 30 September 2004 Chan, Louis -- 18. 23 October 2004 Chan, Mau Wah* 19. 30 October 2004 Chan, Moon Tong Kwun Tong Central District

Committee 20. 1 November 2004 Chan, Pedro Kowloong City Leisure and

Sports Association* 21. 23 October 2004 Chan, Philip Modern Research Institute of

Herbal Medicine 22. 21 October 2004 Chan, T.W. -- 23. 4 November 2004 Chan, Wai Yip Legislative Council 24. 10 November 2004 Chan, Wai Yip Legislative Council 25. 30 September 2004 Chan, Wai Yiu -- 26. 22 October 2004 Chan, Walter -- 27. 10 November 2004 Chau, Ricky -- 28. 1 October 2004 Chau, Thomas -- 29. 18 September 2004 Cheng, Christopher -- 30. 22 October 2004 Cheng, Norman -- 31. -- Cheung Chi Keung* -- 32. 16 October 2004 Cheung, Hoi Wai Leo Hong Kong University of

Science & Technology 33. 20 October 2004 Cheung, Kennedy -- 34. 5 November 2004 # Cheung, Kwun Shing -- 35. 30 September 2004 Cheung, Lin Yan -- 36. 29 September 2004 Cheung, Linda -- 37. 1 October 2004 Cheung, Monica -- 38. 26 September 2004 Cheung, S.W. -- 39. 27 October 2004 Chin, Annie -- 40. 22 October 2004 Chin, Connie -- 41. 21, 30 September, 2,

5, 8 October, 22 November 2004

Chin, Francis The Save Kai Tak Campaign

42. 23 October 2004 Chin, Yiu Man --


Date Name Organization 43. 13 October 2004 Choi, Kenny -- 44. 25 October 2004 Choi, Kim Lui New Moonraker Motorboat

Co. Ltd. 45. 23 October 2004 Chow, W.C. Francis -- 46. 30 September 2004 Chow, Winnie -- 47. 27 October 2004 Chu, Chi Sang -- 48. 26 October 2004 Chu, Gladys Airport Authority 49. 1 October 2004 Chu, Ka Lai -- 50. 29 October 2004 # Chu, Winston Society for Protection of the

Harbour 51. 31October 2004 Chuang, Li Tung -- 52. 5 October 2004 Chung, Karen -- 53. 27 September 2004 Citizen -- 54. 30 September 2004 Davies, Rob -- 55. 30 October 2004 Edwards, Stephen -- 56. 9 November 2004 Estate Owners’ Committee of

Laguna City (Phase 1,2 & 4) Estate Owners’ Committee of Laguna City (Phase 1,2 & 4)

57. 29 November 2004 Estate Owners’ Committee of Laguna Verde

Estate Owners’ Committee of Laguna Verde

58. 19 November 2004 Fok, Chiu Yan -- 59. 22 October 2004 Fok, Rex -- 60. -- Fortunate Fame Promotion Ltd. Fortunate Fame Promotion

Ltd. 61. 8 November 2004 Fung, Ronnie Hong Kong Housing Society 62. 22 October 2004 Fung, Yuen Wing -- 63. 19 November 2004 Gao, Jisheng School of Architecture, Tsing

Hua University 64. 30 September 2004 Guillot, C.J.J. -- 65. 30 September 2004 Guillot, Cyrille -- 66. 30 September 2004 Harris, Richard -- 67. 17 September 2004 Ho, Brian -- 68. 18 September 2004 Ho, Chi Kong* -- 69. 3 October 2004 Ho, Hermes -- 70. -- Ho, Man Sze -- 71. 23 September 2004 Ho, Richard -- 72. 29 October 2004 Ho, Shu Sang -- 73. 8 November 2004 Hong Kong & Kowloon Ferry Ltd. Hong Kong & Kowloon Ferry

Ltd. 74. 15 November 2004 Hong Kong & Kowloon Motor

Boats & Tug Boats Association Ltd.

Hong Kong & Kowloon Motor Boats & Tug Boats Association Ltd.

75. 23 September 2004 Hong Kong Air Traffic Control Association

Hong Kong Air Traffic Control Association

76. 5 November 2004 # Hong Kong Aviation Club Ltd. Hong Kong Aviation Club Ltd. 77. 15 November 2004 Hong Kong General Chamber of

Commerce, Real Estate and Infrastructure Committee

HKGCC Real Estate and Infrastructure Committee

78. 19 November 2004 Hong Kong Housing Society Hong Kong Housing Society 79. 18 November 2004 Hong Kong Institute of

Vocational Education (Lee Wai Lee)

Hong Kong Institute of Vocational Education

80. 28 October 2004 Hong Kong Mid-Stream Operators Association Ltd.

Hong Kong Mid-Stream Operators Association Ltd.


Date Name Organization 81. 17 November 2004 Hong Kong Patachute

Association Hong Kong Patachute Association

82. 16 November 2004 Hong Kong Policy Research Institute Ltd.

Hong Kong Policy Research Institute Ltd.

83. 28 October 2004 Hong Kong Recycle Materials & Re-production Business General Association Ltd

Hong Kong Recycle Materials & Re-production Business General Association Ltd

84. 22 October 2004 Hong Kong Tai Long Fung* -- 85. 29 November 2004 # Hong Kong Triathlon Association Hong Kong Triathlon

Association 86. 15 November 2004 Hospitality Industry Training and

Development Centre, Vocational Training Council

Hospitality Industry Training and Development Centre, Vocational Training Council

87. -- Hostfame Int'l Ltd. -- 88. 10 December 2004 Howard, Zoe -- 89. 19 November 2004 Howarth, C.D. Hong Kong Water Ski

Association Ltd. 90. 21 October 2004 Huen, Jackie -- 91. 5 October 2004 Hui, Cheng Doris -- 92. 1 October 2004 Hui, Chi Fung -- 93. 17 November 2004 Hui, Kwok Kwong Ngau Hing Plastic Materials

Ltd. 94. 2 October 2004 Hui, Tak Shau Freeman -- 95. 2 October 2004 Hung, Andrew -- 96. 3 November 2004 Ip, Claude -- 97. 30 November 2004 Ip. Keith -- 98. 5 November 2004 Iu, Po Lung -- 99. -- J.L. Investment Company Ltd. J.L. Investment Company Ltd. 100. -- J's Holdings Ltd. J's Holdings Ltd. 101. 19 November 2004 Kai Tak Planning and

Development Concern Group* Kai Tak Planning and Development Concern Group*

102. -- Kan, Po Yee The University of Hong Kong 103. 19 November 2004 Ko, Ming Suen -- 104. -- Kong, Tak Yee Aaron Shum Jewellery Ltd. 105. 23 October 2004 Kong, Zoe Chevalier 106. 23 October 2004 Kung, Ka Fai Kevin Hong Kong Air Cadet Crops 107. 19 November 2004 # Kwan, Mike -- 108. 8 October 2004 Kwok, Gloria -- 109. 7 November 2004 Kwok, Ming Chi -- 110. 18 November 2004 Kwun Tong Community Builders

Alliance Kwun Tong Community Builders Alliance

111. 19 November 2004 Kwun Tong Resident Association Kwun Tong Resident Association

112. -- Lai, Yui Ming -- 113. 16 October 2004 # Lam, Man Fai Recreation of Local Culture * 114. 22 October 2004 Lam, C.W. -- 115. 23 July 2004 Lam, Ching Cheong -- 116. 27 October 2004 Lam, Irene -- 117. 22 October 2004 Lam, Mei Yung Hazel School of Early Children

Education, Hong Kong Institute of Education

118. 28 October 2004 Lau, Chung-pun Alec Hong Kong Air Cadet Crops 119. 1 November 2004 Lau, Gary Hong Kong Aviation Club


Date Name Organization 120. -- Lau, Man U Sania The University of Hong Kong 121. 5 October 2004 Law, Kwok Keung -- 122. 18 November 2004 Lee, C.Y. Peter -- 123. 30 October 2004 Lee, Kar Wai -- 124. 30 October 2004 Lee, Wang Chun* -- 125. 23 November 2004 Lee, Yee Leung -- 126. 19 November 2004 # Leung, S.K. -- 127. 2 October 2004 Li, Arthur -- 128. 24 October 2004 Li, Gladys -- 129. 30 September 2004 Li, Lavinia -- 130. 26 November 2004 Li, Man Fai * -- 131. 25 October 2004 Li, Michelle M. de -- 132. 29 September 2004 Li, Tung Cheung Hong Kong Aviation Club &

Hong Kong Air Cadet Crops 133. -- Li, Wai Kit Centre of Urban Planning and

Environmental Management, the University of Hong Kong

134. 8 October 2004 Ling, Michael -- 135. -- Linsvale Company Ltd. Linsvale Company Ltd. 136. 19 September 2004 Liu, W.K. Adam -- 137. 22 October 2004 Liu, Wai Keung -- 138. 8 October 2004 Lo, Marge & Linus -- 139. 4 October 2004 Lo, Chi On* -- 140. 30 October 2004 Loh, Christine Civic Exchange 141. 24 December 2004 Lorinna -- 142. -- Lui, Man Department of Architecture,

the University of Hong Kong 143. 13 October 2004 Luk, Fook Tai -- 144. 29 October 2004 Mak, Leung Kwong -- 145. -- Manuel Kowk Keung, Kevin City University of Hong Kong 146. 8 November 2004 Marine Excursion Association

Ltd. Marine Excursion Association Ltd.

147. -- Marine Resident Association* Marine Resident Association* 148. -- Mei Ah Dyestuff Chemical Co.

Ltd. Mei Ah Dyestuff Chemical Co. Ltd.

149. -- Moneray Co. Ltd. Moneray Co. Ltd. 150. 18 October 2004 Mr. Tang -- 151. 20 September 2004 Mrs. Chow -- 152. 19 September 2004 Mrs. Lam* -- 153. -- Ms. Lam* -- 154. 13 November 2004 MTR Corporation Ltd. MTR Corporation Ltd. 155. 30 October 2004 Nam, Chi Leung Billy -- 156. 29 September 2004 Neoh, Betty -- 157. 1 November 2004 New Territories Cargo Transport

Association New Territories Cargo Transport Association

158. 10 October 2004 Ng, Ching Or * -- 159. 30 September 2004 Ng, Hayward -- 160. 29 September 2004 Ng, Lee Yuk Lin Susanna -- 161. -- Ng, Sum Tat -- 162. -- Ngai Keung Handbags Fty (HK)

Ltd. Ngai Keung Handbags Fty (HK) Ltd.


Date Name Organization 163. -- Ngau Hing Plastic Materials Ltd. Ngau Hing Plastic Materials

Ltd. 164. 25 October 2004 Nissim, Roger -- 165. -- Niu, Emile -- 166. -- Oh, Wing Sze Grace J.B Jewellery (HK) Ltd. 167. 23 September 2004 Or, Chong Shing Kwun Tong District Council 168. 26 October 2004 Pang, Y.K. -- 169. -- Panter Garment Fty Ltd. Panter Garment Fty Ltd. 170. -- Parafortune Fashion Co. Ltd. Parafortune Fashion Co. Ltd. 171. 30 September 2004 Paterson, Cynthia -- 172. 22 October 2004 Poon, Kelvin -- 173. 4 November 2004 Rhythm Garden Owners’

Committee Rhythm Garden Owners’ Committee

174. 18 November 2004 Rhythm Garden Owners’ Committee

Rhythm Garden Owners’ Committee

175. 3 December 2004 # Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club 176. N/A # Rutledge, Scott Leward -- 177. 29 October 2004 Sankey, Alan West Island School 178. 1 December 2004 Shi, Lop Tak Allen Hong Kong Wong Tai Sin

Industry and Commerce Association Ltd. / Wong Tin Sin District Council

179. 26 October 2004 Shiu, Alan -- 180. 11 November 2004 # Shu, Lok Shing -- 181. 8 November 2004 Shum, Man Biu -- 182. 8 October 2004 Siu, Kevin

Hong Kong Aviation Club

183. 30 October 2004 Siu,Yuen Sheung Kowloon City District Council 184. 12 November 2004 Sung, Alfred -- 185. -- Sunny Creations Ltd. Sunny Creations Ltd. 186. 19 November 2004 # Swire Properties Ltd Swire Properties Ltd 187. 29 October 2004 Sze, Chi Hung Hanison Group 188. 23 October 2004 Szeto, Iris -- 189. 25 December 2004 Tai, Siu Kwan -- 190. 5 October 2004 Tai, Stephen HAESL 191. 25 October 2004 Tan, Mike -- 192. 23 September 2004 Tang, Hong Si North Point Young

Association of Hong Kong 193. -- Tang, Lap Yin James Golden Investment Ltd. 194. -- Tenwarm Industrial Ltd. Tenwarm Industrial Ltd. 195. 29 October 2004 Teo, Yat See Patty Perkins Coie 196. 18 November 2004 The Conservancy Association The Conservancy Association 197. 19 November 2004 The Hong Kong Federation of

Trade Union The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Union

198. 19 November 2004 The Hong Kong Institute of Engineers

The Hong Kong Institute of Engineers

199. 13 December 2004 The Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors

The Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors

200. -- The Incorporated Owners of Hilder Centre

The Incorporated Owners of Hilder Centre

201. 3 November 2004 The Kowloon Motor Bus Co. (1933) Ltd.

The Kowloon Motor Bus Co. (1933) Ltd.


Date Name Organization 202. 19 November 2004 The Real Estate Developers

Association of Hong Kong The Real Estate Developers Association of Hong Kong

203. 19 November 2004 # The Save Kai Tak Campaign The Save Kai Tak Campaign 204. 22 October 2004 Thomason, Neil -- 205. 29 September 2004 Thorburn, James -- 206. 24 October 2004 Tsai, Chi Chai -- 207. 4 October 2004 Tsai, Wang -- 208. 4 November 2004 Tse, Deric -- 209. 12 November 2004 Tse, Lawrence VisionEngineer.com 210. 19 November 2004 Tse, Lawrence VisionEngineer.com 211. 30 September 2004 Tse, Patrick HK Aviation Club 212. 3 October 2004 Tse, Y.L. May -- 213. 30 September 2004 Tsui, Hong Ping Micheal -- 214. -- Union Laser Alarm Co. Ltd. Union Laser Alarm Co. Ltd. 215. 16 November 2004 Victoria Harbour Typhoon Shelter

Concern Group* Victoria Harbour Typhoon Shelter Concern Group*

216. -- Waddy Jewellery Co. Ltd. Waddy Jewellery Co. Ltd. 217. 28 October 2004 Waheed, Abdul ALM Enterprise 218. 2 October 2004 Wesemann, Lothar H. LHW Inv. & Trading Ltd. 219. -- Wing Fung Group Holdings Ltd. Wing Fung Group Holdings Ltd. 220. -- Wong, Eric York Star Co. Ltd. 221. 8 November 2004 Wong, Ezra -- 222. 2 October 2004 Wong, Henry -- 223. 11 October 2004 Wong, Legant -- 224. 3 October 2004 Wong, M.K. John Hong Kong Marine

Conservation Society 225. 28 December 2004 # Wong, Michael Greenwatch 226. 23 October 2004 Wong, Michael Y.K. -- 227. 1 October 2004 Wong, Shirley -- 228. 22 October 2004 Wong, Timothy -- 229. 30 September 2004 Wong, Tony -- 230. 1 October 2004 Wong, Wai Ip -- 231. 30 September 2004 Wong, Yolanda -- 232. 23 October 2004 Woo, Kelvin -- 233. 24 October 2004 Xue, Charlie City University of Hong Kong 234. 25 October 2004 Yan, T.S. Stephen Hong Kong Aviation Club 235. 21 October 2004 Yau, David -- 236. 29 September 2004 Yeung, Man Bik Judith -- 237. 29 October 2004 Yeung, Wai Tung -- 238. -- Yip, Francis K.S. Universal Love 239. 11 October 2004 Yu, Chung Yiu Brian -- 240. 9 November 2004 Yu, S.C. -- 241. 25 October 2004 Yue, Mary -- 242. 18 September 2004 Yuen, Raymond -- 243. 25 October 2004 Yung, Chi Yin* -- 244. 22 September 2004 # Zimmerman, Paul --

Note: The above written submissions are listed in alphabetical order. Among the written submissions received, 93 submissions are from the “One Person One Email” of the Save Kai Tak Campaign, 26 submissions are from the occupants of Hilda Centre objecting reclamation at To Kwa Wan and Hung Hom.

* Translation of Chinese name # Submission with Land Use Concept Plan


II INDEX OF COMMENTERS IN THE CONSULTATION MEETING/BRIEFINGS Consultation Meeting/Briefings Name HEC Sub-committee on SEKD Review Brooke, Charles Nicholas

Chan, Kim On

Chan, Wai Kwan

Ho, Betty

Jim, Chi Yung

Kwok, Alvin

Lam, Kin Che

Lee, Starry

Leung, Andy

Ng, Vincent

Tang, Roger

Wong, Joseph

Zimmerman, Paul

TPB Town Planning Board Members KTDC Chan, Cheong

Chan, Kam Lam

Chan, Kok Wah Ben

Chan, Wah Yu

Chin, Ching Man Danny

Lau, Ting On

Leung, Fu Wing

Lui, Tung Hai

Poon, Chun Yuen

So, Kwan Hon

Sun, Kai Lit

Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation KCDC – H&IC Chan, Ka Wai

Chan, Wing Lim

Fung, King Man Virgina

Ho, Hin Ming

Ip, Che Kin

Lee, Kin Kan

Leung Ying Piu

Man, Tak Chuen

Mok, Ka Jan Rosanda

Wen, Choy Bon

Wong, Kwok Keung

PSC/LBAC Duggie, Sandy

Wong, Augustine

Yiu, Steve

The Real Estate Developers Association REDA Members

SSPDC Kwok Chun Wah

Cheung Wing Sum, Ambrose

Leung, Kam Tao

Leung, Lai

Li, Hong Hung

Tsang, Yuen Cheong

Wong, Tak Chuen Joe

Hong Kong Institute of Planners HKIP Members


Consultation Meeting/Briefings Name MTR Corporation MTR Corporation

ACE Ng, Cho Nam Ng, Mei Shaw, Markus Wong, Tze Wai WTSDC Chan, On Tai

Cheng, Tak Kin Michael

Chui, Pak Tai

Fung Kwong Chung

Ho,Yin Fai

Lai, Wing Ho Joe

Lam, Ma Fai

Lau Chi Wang, James

Li, Sze-bay Albert

Lee, Tat Yan

Ng, Yiu Man

Wong, Kam Chi

Wu Chi Wai

PLVAC Cheng, Jui Shan

Choi, Kim Lui

Kwok, Kam Tung

Ho, Chi Shing

Szeto, Vitus

Wong, Yiu Kan

Wu, Ka Shun

The Save Kai Tak Campaign The Save Kai Tak Campaign LBAC Albert So Lam Wo-hei Lau, James Rebecca Chiu Tse, Tony Yeung Yue Man Swire Properties Ltd Swire Properties Ltd Kai Tak Planning and Development Concerned Group

Kai Tak Planning and Development Concerned Group Members

TAC Huang, Lester

Kwan, Vincent Lai, Chi Tong Tsang, Eric


III INDEX OF COMMENTERS IN THE PUBLIC FORUMS & WORKSHOP Public Forum 1 (16 October 2004) Role Name Organization Convener Yeung Yue Man Director, Hong Kong Institute of Asia- Pacific

Studies Panel Member Patrick Lau Sau Shing Legislative Council Member & Vice-Chairman,

Town Planning Board Panel Member Chan Wai Kwan Chairman, HEC Sub-committee on SEKD Review Panel Member Wong Kam Chi Chairman, Wong Tai Sin District Council Panel Member Anthony Kwan Assistant Director/ Metro, Planning Department Registered Speaker 1

Albert Lai Citizen Envisioning@Harbour

Registered Speaker 2 #

Paul Zimmerman Designing Hong Kong Harbour District


Sujata. S. Govada Centre of Urban Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Hong Kong


Francis Chin & Ms. Joanlin Au The Save Kai Tak Campaign


Lam Man Fai Recreation of Local Culture *

Registered Speaker 6

Cheung Hoi Wai. Leo Hong Kong University of Science and Technology


Gavin Neale Heliads Ltd.


Tang Hong Si * North Point Young Association of Hong Kong

Floor Speaker Mr. Chan -- Floor Speaker Citizen, Ma Tau Wai -- Floor Speaker Mee Kam Ng Centre of Urban Planning and Environmental

Management, The University of Hong Kong Floor Speaker Betty Ho Ditto

Public Forum 2 (23 October 2004) Role Name Organization Convener Hon. Patrick Lau Sau Shing Legislative Council Member & Vice-Chairman,

Town Planning Board Panel Member Dr. Chan Wai Kwan Chairman, HEC Sub-committee on SEKD

Review Panel Member Mr. Wong Kwok Keung Chairman, Kowloon City District Council Panel Member Mr. Anthony Kwan Assistant Director/ Metro, Planning Department Registered Speaker 1 #

Mr. Francis Chin & Ms. Joanlin Au

The Save Kai Tak Campaign


Karen Lam Centre of Urban Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Hong Kong


Li Man Hon Ditto

Floor Speaker Hong Kong Kowloon City Industries & Commerce Association *

Hong Kong Kowloon City Industries & Commerce Association *

Floor Speaker Hui, Wai Hung Hong Kong Housing Society Floor Speaker Citizen, Kowloon City -- Floor Speaker Citizen, Tai Kok Tsui -- Floor Speaker Citizen, 13 Streets -- Floor Speaker Citizen --


Role Name Organization Floor Speaker Lau, Cavin -- Floor Speaker Wong, Kai Ming Member, Kwun Tong District Council Floor Speaker Wong, M.K. John HK Marine Conservation Society

Public Forum 3 (30 October 2004) Role Name Organization Convener Peter Wong King Keung Vice Chairman, Metro Planning Committee of

the Town Planning Board Panel Member Chan Wai Kwan Chairman, HEC Sub-committee on SEKD

R

REPORT OF STAGE 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION · 2018. 1. 24. · REPORT OF STAGE 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION :...

Documents

Transcript of REPORT OF STAGE 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION · 2018. 1. 24. · REPORT OF STAGE 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION :...