PDF Format - Our Harbour Front

- 2 -Mrs Agnes LeungMr TW Ng (Secretary)Chief Executive Officer (2)1, HomeAffairs DepartmentSenior Town Planner/Sub-Regional,Planning DepartmentIn AttendanceMr Raymond WM WongMr Andrew CheungMs Portia YiuMr Bryan LiChief Town Planner/Sub-Regional,Planning DepartmentAssistant Secretary (Planning)2, Housing,Planning and Lands BureauAssistant Secretary (Planning)4, Housing,Planning and Lands BureauSenior Executive Officer (Planning),Housing, Planning and Lands BureauAbsent with ApologiesMr Leslie Chen Hong Kong Institute of LandscapeArchitectsActionItem 1Election of Chairman1.1 The Secretary welcomed all Members andGovernment representatives to the first meeting of theSub-committee on Harbour Plan Review (theSub-committee) of the Harbour-front EnhancementCommittee (HEC).1.2 For the chair of the Sub-committee, Dr AndrewThomson nominated, and Dr Alvin Kwok and MrsMei Ng seconded, Mr Vincent Ng. There being noother nomination nor objection, Mr Vincent Ng waselected Chairman of the Sub-committee.1.3 The Chairman thanked Members for their support andmembers of the public and the press for attending themeeting.

- 3 -1.4 At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr NicholasBrooke, a member of the HEC originally attending theSub-committee meeting as an observer, agreed to jointhe Sub-committee as a Member.Item 2House Rules of the Sub-committee (Paper No.1/2004)2.1 The Chairman invited Members to comment on theHouse Rules set out in Paper No.1/2004. He pointedout that the rules would be further discussed andendorsed by the plenary session of the HEC on 9September 2004.Membership and Voting2.2 In reply to Mrs Mei Ng’s query about the criteria forco-opting members into the Sub-committee, MrThomas Tso said that individuals could be co-optedas and when the Sub-committee considered itnecessary to have expert input on certain topics orprojects.2.3 Mr Jimmy Kwok and Mr KY Leung shared the viewthat experts could be invited to the discussion asobservers as and when necessary. It was notnecessary to go through the appointment procedures.2.4 Mr TC Chan commented that the whole of theSub-committee would be stymied because of therequirements under para 2(d) of the House Rules forappointing individuals as co-opted members.2.5 Dr Andrew Thomson was concerned that the HouseRules as presently drafted would render the operationof the Sub-committee cumbersome and less efficient.2.6 Mr Nicholas Brooke opined that the operation of theSub-committee should not become too bureaucratic.He suggested that co-opting and appointing members

- 6 -complicated. In response to Mrs Mei Ng ’ scomment, he said that other channels were in place inthe Government to resolve issues that might ariseduring the implementation of the project.2.16 In view of different sentiments over the subject matter,the Chairman suggested to refer all comments to HECfor deliberation.Declaration of Interests2.17 Mr Nicholas Brooke considered that the subjectmatter was not a clear-cut black-and-white matter, onwhich a lot of guidance should be provided before theHEC could deliberate in depth. He suggested adiscussion paper, or a briefing by the IndependentCommission Against Corruption (ICAC), be arrangedto assist deliberation at the forthcoming HEC meeting.He also suggested making reference to the interestsdeclaration of the Town Planning Board members.Item 3Terms of Reference (Paper No.2/2004)3.1 The Secretary tabled a replacement for PaperNo.2/2004 in which the Membership list was amendedto reflect the original HEC Member from the HongKong Institute of Landscape Architects.3.2 Dr Andrew Thomson suggested deleting the term“quick win” in item (b) as he considered that theterm misleading. The focus should rather be set onworthwhile improvement works, regardless how longit would take. The meeting agreed.3.3 In reply to Mr Nicholas Brooke’s query on thedefinition of the physical boundary of the Harbour, theChairman said that the Sub-committee would adoptthe same definition as presented at the first HEC

- 7 -meeting. The meeting agreed.Item 4 Review on Harbour Planning Principles (Paper 3/2004)4.1 Mr Raymond Wong presented the paper and invitedMembers to comment on the revised HarbourPlanning Principles.4.2 Dr Alvin Kwok noted that the term “public” hadbeen added to some of the planning principles. Yet,to ensure public views were duly taken on board in theplanning process, he reiterated that the six principlesput forth by the Citizen Envisioning@Harbourinitiative and presented at the first HEC meeting beincorporated, namely (i) inclusive / participatory/consensus building; (ii) integrated planning/quality oflife; (iii) fair game for all; (iv) accountability; (v)precautionary; and (vi) subsidiarity.4.3 Dr Andrew Thomson said that the Designing HongKong Harbour District initiative had also come up witha set of planning principles, which were presented toHEC at its second meeting. He suggested putting thethree sets of planning principles from different partiesin a melting pot. He proposed that the next stepswere to delineate the boundaries of the Harbour area,devise a set of terminologies for areas under discussion,formulate an overall strategy for the Harbour, dividethe Harbour into zones, and identify areas forenhancement.4.4 Mr Augustine Ng said that as a starting point, theHarbour Planning Principles were formulated bystudying what constituted a beautiful harbour andaccommodating all good overseas principles andpractice. Yet, he was willing to consider expandingthe set of planning principles to suitably include theprinciples suggested by Dr Kwok. In response to DrThomson’s comments, Mr Augustine Ng pointed out

- 8 -that different areas around the Harbour were subject todifferent considerations. He was of the view thatformulating an overall framework for the Harbourbefore working on any concrete project would renderthe whole review process cumbersome and lengthy.Instead, he considered that an integrated area approachshould be more appropriate. As the process evolved,Members could offer comments and include specificproject areas.4.5 Mr Raymond Wong said that a boundary was anabstract line and the transition between theharbourfront and the hinterland was gradual. Heconsidered that a study of the opportunities availableand the existing constraints should be the starting pointof the review. He added that at the request of aMember, a briefing on land uses and developments onboth sides of the Harbour would be given at theforthcoming HEC meeting.4.6 Mrs Mei Ng said that she had several concerns. First,she felt that the vision for the Harbour was toorestrictive. She suggested that a three-dimensionalapproach, taking into account building height, airspaceand underground areas, be adopted. Second, she feltthat transportation, utilities and tourism still weighedheavily in the principles. Third, there was no mentionof a management framework nor how the public was tobe involved. Lastly, she said that there should be lessartificiality and buildings along the waterfront.4.7 Mr Bernard Chan reminded that the legal framework,as a result of the court judgment handed down inrespect of reclamation works, should also beincorporated in the principles.4.8 The Chairman emphasised that the Sub-committeeshould aim for action. He proposed Dr Alvin Kwok,Dr Andrew Thomson and Planning Department toform a task group to work out the planning principles.Miss Daisy Lai said that HKIP also wished to join thetask group. The Secretary would arrange the meeting

- 9 -of the task groups towards the end of August. TheChairman invited the task group to report its findingsto the Sub-committee before presentation to the HEC.SecretaryItem 5 Potential Enhancement Areas Overview (Paper No. 4/2004)5.1 Mr Raymond Wong presented the paper on thepotential enhancement projects and Mr Thomas Tsointroduced the supplementary note on West Kowloon.Members were invited to comment on the potentialenhancement areas or suggest any possible area.5.2 In reply to the Chairman’s query, Mr Thomas Tsoclarified that funding had not yet been identified forthe potential enhancement projects other than theproposed waterfront promenade at south-west cornerof the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD), whichformed part of an on-going project.5.3 Dr Alvin Kwok suggested that design competition beheld to pool talents from primary and secondaryschools as part of the beautification initiative toimprove the hoarding along Central waterfront. Onimprovement proposal at West Kowloon waterfront, hehad reservation on disposing of the temporarymanagement right of the WKCD site by way of tender.He counter-proposed that the use of land be granted toa non-government organization. Mr TC Chan sharedDr Kwok’s concern as tendering process did not takeaccount of the competency of the bidders adequatelyinsofar as management and maintenance wereconcerned.5.4 In response, Mr Thomas Tso stressed that the mainobjective of enhancing the waterfront was to allowpublic enjoyment. In any tendering exercise, theprimary concern would be meeting such objective, andthe bidding price would not be the sole factor for

- 10 -consideration. With the site currently available, MrTso appealed to Members for support in making theWKCD possible for public use as a matter of urgency.5.5 Regarding the Hung Hom waterfront, Mr JimmyKwok supported the Government to continue liaisingwith the developer of the waterfront hotel site in regardof the implementation of the missing waterfront link.5.6 Mr Nicholas Brooke was concerned that working onpotential enhancement projects without an integratedharbour plan could be seen as a piecemeal approach.He suggested refraining from making judgment untilthere was an overall strategy established. He alsocommented that the WKCD site was not easilyaccessible to members of the public. Mr KY Leungshared the view that the Sub-committee should adopt aholistic approach.5.7 Mr Augustine Ng explained that currently parts of theHarbour, including Central, Wanchai, and South EastKowloon, were subject to planning studies andconstruction works. In this regard, a comprehensiveplan would not emerge for some time to come. On theother hand, there were small stretches of the harbourfront for which improvement works could readily beinitiated. These proposals, if planned properly, couldcontribute to building up the grand plan. TheChairman urged the Sub-committee to consider thoseprojects in this light. Mr Augustine Ng added that itwas unusual in the Government system that fundingcould be set aside for proposals with no details.However, community consensus would certainly helpGovernment departments seek funding in takingforward proposals for the benefit of the community.5.8 Mrs Mei Ng was of the view that the proposed quickenhancement projects and the overall planningframework could be pursued in tandem. Yet, sheconsidered that both of them should follow thesustainability principles.

- 11 -5.9 The Chairman noted the request of Mr PaulZimmerman from the public gallery to speak anddecided to give him the floor, yet restricting time to oneminute.5.10 Mr Paul Zimmerman said that he and the interestedorganizations had been spending six months on theDesigning Hong Kong Harbour District project. Heurged for the sub-committee to undertake a strategicprocess for harbour-front enhancement by sub-dividingthe Harbour Plan, which covers the entire protectedharbour, into Harbour-front Areas based on the generalcondition of the harbour-front. Then to develop aHarbour-front Area Enhancement Strategy for eacharea which varies based on the state of the variousprojects and ownership. Then to identify within eacharea Potential Enhancement Projects and PriorityEnhancement Projects. Noting that what was identifiedas 'Potential Enhancement Areas' in the materialspresented during the meeting, are in fact Projectsinstead of Areas.5.11 The Chairman suggested that the waterfrontpromenade at WKCD and the beautification ofhoarding at Central Pier 7 should proceed first as thoseproposals were temporary in nature and for whichfunding was readily available. Other proposalsshould be further considered having taken discussionon Item 6 into account. The meeting agreed.Item 6 Enjoying by Designing Central Harbourfront –Implementation of Step 2 (Paper No.5/2004)6.1 Dr. Alvin Kwok presented the paper and invitedMembers to comment on the proposed publicengagement process.6.2 Mr Nicholas Brooke expressed support to theapproach outlined by Dr. Kwok in engaging differentstakeholders through a variety of events. He

- 12 -indicated that such approach would be the way tobuild consensus. Mr Jimmy Kwok agreed.6.3 Mrs Mei Ng stressed the importance of involving awider spectrum of people in the planning process,including those who might be indirectly influenced aswell.6.4 On funding issue, Mr Nicholas Brooke opined thatcertain activities could be funded by non-governmentorganizations and the detailed funding arrangementshould be further discussed at a task group. Themeeting agreed.6.5 At the request of the Chairman, Dr Alvin Kwokagreed to lead the task force. Dr Andrew Thomson,Mr KY Leung, Mrs Mei Ng, and the Chairman onbehalf of HKIA also agreed to join the task group, withrepresentation from PlanD and CEDD.Item 7 Any Other Business7.1 Mrs Mei Ng raised concern on communication andinformation flow among the three sub-committees andthe reporting mechanism of the sub-committees to themain committee. In reply, Mr Thomas Tso statedthat submission of progress reports from allsub-committees would become a standing item of theHEC. With majority of members serving more thanone sub-committees, members could bring a wealth ofinformation to the work of each sub-committee. MrTso noted that the circulation of minutes would alsoassist dissemination of information.7.2 Mrs Mei Ng enquired the need to introduce relevantguidelines to regulate submission and/or presentationto the committee. The Chairman opined that opendiscussion should be encouraged and therefore theurgency of having a set of rules governing

- 13 -presentation or submission would be less imminent.He noted that the HEC would consider the matter atthe coming meeting.7.3 As there was no other business, the meeting closed at5.50 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for 6October, 2004.HEC Sub-committee onHarbour Plan ReviewOctober 2004