stage2 pp report eng

8/3/2019 Stage2 PP Report Eng

1/46


2/46

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background ............................. .................................. ................................. ......... 21.2 Launching of Stage 2 Public Participation: Outline Concept Plans ............... 31.3 Public Engagement Activities ............................. ................................. .............. 41.4 Collaborating Organizations ............................. .................................. ............... 51.5 The Sub-committee on South East Kowloon Development of

Harbour-front Enhancement Committee ................ .................................. ......... 5

1.6 Purpose of this Report ................................. ................................. ...................... 6

CHAPTER 2SUMMARY OF KEY COMMENTS

2.1 Introduction .............................. .................................. ................................. ........ 72.2 Vision and Planning Principles for Kai Tak ...................................................... 72.3 Key Issues ................................. .................................. ................................. ....... 92.4 Development Concepts .................................. ................................. ................... 162.5 Preliminary Sustainability Assessment ................................. ........................... 42

2.6 Public Participation .............................. ................................. .............................. 422.7 Implementation Issues ................................ .................................. ...................... 43

CHAPTER 3CONCLUDING REMARKS

ANNEXES

Annex A Public Engagement Activities Undertaken in the Stage 2 Public Participation

Annex B Notes of Public Forums, Consultation Meetings and Briengs Annex C Written Submissions Received

Annex D A List of Conveners, Moderators and Panel Members of Public Forums

Annex E Second Kai Tak Forum Report

PAGE


3/46

2

CHAPTER 1

1.1 Background

On 25 June 2002, the Chief Executive in Councilapproved the Kai Tak (North) and (South)Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs) in providing thestatutory planning framework to proceed withthe implementation of the South East KowloonDevelopment. On 9 January 2004, the Court of Final Appeal handed down its judgment on the draft

Wan Chai North OZP clarifying the legal principlesbehind the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance,that the presumption against reclamation in theHarbour Area can only be rebutted by meeting theoverriding public need test. Since the approvedKai Tak OZPs would involve a total reclamationarea of about 133 hectares in the Harbour Area, acomprehensive review of the OZPs is required toensure compliance with the legal requirement.

The Kai Tak Planning Review commenced in July2004. It is tasked to formulate an OCP for KaiTak, with no reclamation as the starting point, toprepare a Preliminary Outline Development Plan(PODP) and to facilitate public participation in theprocess. Preliminary technical assessments wouldbe undertaken to ascertain the broad feasibility of the PODP as input to the Engineering FeasibilityStudy in the next stage of the comprehensivereview.

To foster community support and general consensuson the key issues and to promote ownership on thestudy proposals, a continuous public engagementprocess is required. A 3-stage Public ParticipationStrategy has been formulated to enable morestructured public engagement activities:

Stage 1 : Communitys Visions for Kai Tak to discuss planning objectives, key issues,

development components, public aspirationsand study approach

INTRODUCTION

Stage 2 : Outline Concept Plans to discussvarious development concepts and land useproposals

Stage 3 : Preliminary Outline DevelopmentPlan to present the recommendeddevelopment concept and detailed land useproposals

The Stage 1 Public Participation to gauge thecommunitys visions on the future development of Kai Tak was undertaken in late 2004. Apart fromthe valuable feedbacks received, the process hasalso developed the foundation for a continueddialogue with the community on the planningand development of Kai Tak. A Report on theStage 1 Public Participation, in summarizing the

comments/proposals received and the responsesby the Consultants and Government bureaux/departments, was published in October 2005.


4/46

3

1.2 Launching of Stage 2 PublicParticipation: Outline Concept Plans

The Stage 2 Public Participation was launched on 9November 2005 after the presentation to the TownPlanning Board. The main objective of Stage 2Public Participation is to present to the communitythe OCPs prepared on the basis of land use themesdeveloped in the Stage 1 Public Participation,with a view to inviting public comments on the

development concepts for Kai Tak. Commentsreceived will serve as inputs to prepare the PODPfor further discussion in the community.

To facilitate public discussion, a Public ConsultationDigest, in both English and Chinese, was prepared

and widely distributed. In addition, a study websitewas launched to enable a convenient channel for promulgation of supporting background information,consultation materials and study reports. An on-line survey is also posted onto the website for the public to submit feedback during the studyprocess.

Powerpoint presentations and exhibition panels,physical models and interactive 3D computer models have also been employed to facilitatediscussion in the public engagement activities.


5/46

(c) Exhibitions of the discussion materials,physical models and interactive 3D computer models on the 3 OCPs were set up in all thepublic forums.

(d) Consultation materials were also displayed inPlanning Departments Mobile Exhibition Centre

and Hong Kong Planning and InfrastructureExhibition Gallery for general viewing of localand overseas visitors. Discussion seminarswere also arranged for secondary schoolsas part of Planning Departments OutreachProgram in Hong Kong.

Notes of these public discussion forums andthe brieng sessions/consultation meetings areenclosed in Annex B.

The public has also responded positively to the two-month Stage 2 Public Participation in submittingwritten comments, proposals of developmentconcepts and specic project on Kai Tak. Over 150 written submissions have been received,which are enclosed in Annex C. These commentsand proposals are available for viewing in PlanningDepartments public enquiry counters and havebeen uploaded to the study website.

4

1.3 Public Engagement Activities

Under the Stage 2 Public Participation Programme,a wide range of public engagement activities wereundertaken to solicit comments and suggestions.

A list of the public engagement activities organisedduring the Stage 2 Public Participation Programmeis shown in Annex A. These activities are highlightedbelow:

(a) One territory-wide Public Forum was conductedat Kai Tak Point, tip of the ex-airport runway,on 19 November 2005. Three District Forumswere convened in Kowloon City (Ho ManTin Plaza), Wong Tai Sin (Lok Fu ShoppingCentre) and Kwun Tong (Cheerful Court)on 26 November, and 2 and 10 December 2005 respectively. Three Topical Forumswere organized on 28 November, and 6 and

8 December 2005 in Hong Kong CulturalCentre to facilitate more in-depth discussionon the multi-purpose stadium, cruise terminaland KTAC proposals respectively. Over 500participants took part in these events. Videorecording of these public engagement activitiesare uploaded to the study website for generalviewing.

(b) 20 brieng sessions/consultation meetings

have been undertaken to the statutory andadvisory committees, professional andstakeholder groups to focus discussion onissues of their concern.


6/46

1.4 Collaborating Organizations

A number of organizations have kindly providedadvice and assistance to the study team inorganizing the public engagement activities. Their invaluable contribution to the public engagementactivities is greatly appreciated. TheseCollaborating Organizations include:

Sub-committee on South East KowloonDevelopment Review of the Harbour-frontEnhancement Committee

The Hong Kong Institute of Architects

Hong Kong Peoples Council for SustainableDevelopment

Kowloon City District Council

Kwun Tong District Council

Wong Tai Sin District Council

The Conservancy Association

The Hong Kong Institute of Planners

Centre of Urban Planning and EnvironmentalManagement, The University of Hong Kong

Acknowledgements are given to the Convener,Moderators and Panel Members of the publicforums [Annex D] who have contributed greatly tothe success of these events.

The public comments/proposals received duringthe Stage 2 Public Participation were submittedto the Sub-committee on South East KowloonDevelopment Review of the Harbour-frontEnhancement Committee (the Sub-committee)

for consideration. On 12 January 2006, the Sub-committee decided to arrange a public forumto facilitate public discussion on the comments/proposals received in the Stage 2 PublicParticipation and the responses of Governmentbureau/department and the Consultants as wellas to involve the public to discuss the initial ideasof the Study Consultants in the preparation of thePreliminary Outline Development Plan. In thisregard, on 25 March 2006, the Sub-committee

convened the Second Kai Tak Forum. The eventincluded a forum discussion on the commentsand response in the Stage 2 Public Participationprogramme and a workshop on the initial proposalsof the study consultants to address the concerns of the community. The main purposes of the eventare to:

present to the community the commentsgathered in the Stage 2 Public Participation

regarding Outline Concept Plans for KaiTak and the responses of the concernedGovernment bureaux/departments andthe Consultants, so as to enhance thetransparency in the processing of publiccomments;

engage the community to discuss the initialideas in addressing the concerns of thecommunity as raised in the Stage 2 PublicParticipation, so as to provide inputs tothe preparation of the Preliminary Outline

1.5 The Sub-committee onSouth East Kowloon Development of Harbour-front Enhancement Committee

5


7/46

6

1.6 Purpose of This Report

The main purpose of this report is to summarizethe public comments/proposals received in theStage 2 Public Participation Programme and toprovide responses, where appropriate. We haveendeavoured to include all the comments andproposals received, which would be examinedand, where appropriate, in consultation with

relevant bureaux/departments, be incorporatedin the preparation of the PODP. It should also benoted that the comments and responses includedin this report are by no means conclusive aspublic participation is a continuous process in thePlanning Review.

Development Plan (PODP) in Stage 3 of theKai Tak Planning Review; and

enable the participants of the forum tofamiliarize with the development opportunitiesand constraints of the Kai Tak site by arranginga site visit prior to the discussion forum.

The Second Kai Tak Forum, well attended byover 200 participants from various sectors of the community, has provided further input to theGovernment to consolidate the Stage 2 PublicParticipation Report and the preparation of thePODP. Prior to the Forum, site visit to Kai Tak wasarranged on 18 March 2006 to enable membersof the public to familiarize themselves with thedevelopment opportunities and constraints of KaiTak. A total of about 160 participants joined the sitevisit.

A detailed report recording the event and containing


8/46

7

CHAPTER 2

2.1 Introduction

We have received enthusiastic responses to theStage 2 Public Participation Programme. Withthree OCPs to facilitate public discussion, thecomments received are focused on the specicdevelopment concepts for Kai Tak and somespecic suggestions and design concepts havealso been received.

This Chapter provides a summary of the keycomments received as an overall picture of the communitys views. These include thecomments received through written submissions,verbal comments/presentations at public forumsand brieng sessions, views collection forms,questionnaire survey and emails. Notes of thepublic forums, consultation meetings and briengsare attached in Annex B and the written submissions

received can be found in Annex C.

SUMMARY OF KEY COMMENTS

2.2 Vision and Planning Principles for Kai Tak

To guide the future planning and development of Kai Tak, Vision Statement and Planning Principleshave been proposed in the Public ConsultationDigest to encourage public discussion. Apartfrom the comments to elaborate on the VisionStatement/Planning Principles, there was no in-principle objection to the proposals. The public

generally aspires for a vibrant and people-orienteddevelopment in Kai Tak. Enhanced connection of Kai Tak with its neighbouring districts is called for to encourage the regeneration of the surroundingareas and strengthen community integration. Thereis also strong support to planning Kai Tak into anenvironmentally friendly development. People alsolargely concur that the waterfront area should bevery accessible for public enjoyment.

Many commenters stress the historical signicanceof Kai Tak, in particular its aviation history andheritage connection with the adjacent KowloonCity area. Others also urge to capture fully theopportunity to turn Kai Tak into an urban design/landscape showcase for Hong Kong.

There are also suggestions on the planningprinciples, including helping to sustain andenhance Hong Kong as a world-class international

city (Hong Kong Policy Research Institute),providing for common areas and promoting localand diversied economy (Community Alliance onKai Tak Development), and releasing harbour-front areas for short-term uses (Harbour BusinessForum). Some also suggest setting aside sitesfor undesignated uses and some suggest givingpriority to uses, which must be located aroundVictoria Harbour to order to meet the long-termvision of Kai Tak.


9/46

8

Our Responses

The public in general has responded positively tothe vision and planning principles proposed in thePublic Consultation Digest. They will be adheredto as far as practicable in the study process.

We also acknowledge and concur with the planningprinciples raised by the public as helping tosustain and enhance Hong Kong as a world-classinternational city, providing for public spaces andpromoting local and diversied economy. They willbe incorporated into the planning principles for KaiTak, as appropriate, in guiding its future planningand development.

The current Planning Review aims to re-establishthe planning framework for the ex-airport site. ThePODP to be prepared under the Planning Review

would provide denitive land use proposals insetting out the scale of development so as toprovide a basis for planning and provision of transport and utility infrastructure. Since planningis an on-going process, PODP should be exibleenough to cater for unforeseen demand or moreinnovative planning ideas in the future, includinguses that are harbour-dependent. Instead of settingaside pockets of Undesignated sites, we wouldhighlight in the PODP that the revised planningframework is subject to continuous review. SinceKai Tak is a very large site, areas falling within thelater phase of the Development Programme wouldbe investigated for interim uses.


10/46

9

2.3 Key Issues

Reclamation

Many people support adopting no reclamationas the basis for the future Kai Tak Development.Some sectors of the community, however, consider reclamation as the preferred approach to tacklethe incumbent environmental problems at KTAC.

Some raise doubt as whether the KTAC forms partof Victoria Harbour and thus the need to comply withthe Protection of the Harbour Ordinance. Some,e.g. Kowloon City District Council, also requestfor a land use concept proposing reclamation of the area to enable discussion in the community.Others are against it, stressing the need to exhaustnon-reclamation environment mitigation measures.Many consider the runway as an important heritageasset of Hong Kong, which could be turned into a

unique urban design feature.

Some members have no objection to small-scalereclamation to provide essential facilities (e.g. cruiseterminal, piers) or for the general enhancementof the waterfront area (e.g. public promenadeprovision, breakwater for marina). Some also haveno objection to limited reclamation when the samearea of land is returned to water.

Our Responses

In accordance with the Court of Final Appeals(CFA) Judgment handed down in January 2004,the presumption against harbour reclamationas enshrined in the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance can only be rebutted by establishingan overriding public need. To ensure that therevised Kai Tak development scheme would be incompliance with the legal requirement, this Study

has adopted no reclamation as the starting pointin preparing the development concepts.

According to the CFA Judgment, the overridingpublic need must be a compelling and presentneed with no reasonable alternative to reclamation.Since the alternative to reclamation of the KTACas method to tackle the incumbent environmentalproblems is being investigated and there is as yetno justication to demonstrate that the reclamation

therein could meet the overriding public needtest as laid down in the CFA Judgment, there is nobasis for the preparation of any concept plan withreclamation in the KTAC.

For any proposals that may involve reclamation,the project proponent will ensure that they are well

justied and supported by cogent and convincingmaterials to prove that the relevant proposal couldmeet the overriding public need test. We will

consult the Department of Justice on any proposalsthat may involve reclamation.

As dened in Schedule 3 in Cap. 1 of the Laws of Hong Kong, the KTAC forms part of the VictoriaHarbour. Planning proposals therein should complywith the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance.

Kai Tak Approach Channel (KTAC)

There is strong consensus to tackle thelongstanding water quality and odour problems atthe KTAC. Under the no reclamation approach,three preliminary mitigation measures have beenpresented in the Public Consultation Digest totackle the environmental problems at the KTAC.They are a 600m wide opening at the runway toimprove water circulation, interception of polluteddischarge into the KTAC and sediment treatment toremove odour. The effectiveness and sustainability

of these measures remains the main concern of the community.


11/46

10

discharge diversion would pollute the rest of Victoria Harbour.

On the treatment of the contaminated sediments,some people advocate relying on the naturaldecomposition of the sediments over time,complemented by compatible land uses (e.g.

Metro Park) around the KTAC. Others areconcerned about the ecological impact of the in-situ solidication method. Given the developmentopportunities on both sides of the KTAC, manyare concerned whether the odour issue could beadequately addressed to avoid the complaints fromfuture residents/ workers/ visitors. On the issue of odour, some are worried about its health impacts,while others consider a certain level of odour in theshort and medium term acceptable.

There is a general call for the early conrmation of the effectiveness of the environmental mitigationmeasures and thus whether the reclamation optioncould be conrmed or otherwise. Some stressthe importance of eliminating pollution at source,whether reclamation is adopted or not. Subject toimprovement in the water quality, many commenters(including the sports community) also urge for opening up the KTAC for water sports activities (e.g.

international regatta centre proposal submitted byHong Kong, China Rowing Association). Other suggestions include underwater aquarium (CityPlanning Concern Group) and water park.

Some people (especially the local communities)support reclaiming the KTAC as a denite andpossibly cost-effective means to resolve theenvironmental problem. They are worried thatthe non-reclamation measures may not resolvethe environmental problem adequately and in asustainable manner. Some also consider the land-

use benets in its reclamation. Others are againstit, considering that reclamation is irreversible anddoes not comply with the principles enshrined inthe Protection of the Harbour Ordinance.

Many people consider that the KTAC water bodyshould be retained. Among the non-reclamationmitigation methods suggested, many support theinterception of the polluted discharges at source.Other suggestions include diverting the polluted

discharges away from the KTAC, sewage treatmenton land, pumping water from the Harbour to KaiTak Nullah to increase the water ow, controllingthe tidal ows through sluice gates (Hong KongChina Rowing Association) and maintaining araised barrier under water to keep sediment inplace. Some nevertheless are concerned whether


12/46

11

Our Responses The Kai Tak Development is classied as a Major Designated Project requiring Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA) Report under Schedule 3 of the EIA Ordinance (EIAO) to cover the relevantenvironmental matters. Under the Ordinance,

an EIA report would be prepared in accordancewith the requirements of the EIA Study Brief andthe Technical Memorandum for EIA Processto ensure the environmental feasibility of theproject. Environmental issues of KTAC will be fullyaddressed and concluded under the EIA.

The Kai Tak Planning Review commenced theinvestigation with no-reclamation as the startingpoint. Preliminary investigations on the water

quality problems and possible mitigation measuresas well as laboratory test on the application of calcium nitrate in mitigating the odour problemshave been completed. We are undertaking moredetailed water quality survey and modelling workas well as pilot eld trial on bioremediation methodon the sediments in the KTAC. The current targetis to produce preliminary assessment resultsby mid-2006 and a preliminary indication of theeffectiveness of the mitigation measures could be

available in late 2006. This would be based ona no reclamation approach to tackle the water

quality and odour problems in KTAC and subjectto consultation with Advisory Council on theEnvironment and the EIAO process.

Bioremediation and in-situ solidication methodshave been considered to tackle the sediments in theKTAC. Under the bioremediation method, calciumnitrate will be injected to reduce odour generationwithout causing release of the contaminants intothe water. In-situ solidication method is expectedto have shortcomings like the changing the originalseabed to a cement-like layer and thus not to beinvestigated further. Controlling pollution sourcesthrough interception of polluted discharges and

enforcement of legislations will be an on-goingeffort.


13/46

12

Regarding the comments to reclaim the KTAC,since the alternative to reclamation of the KTACas method to tackle the existing environmentalproblems is being investigated and there is as yetno justication to demonstrate that the reclamationtherein could meet the over-riding public needtest as laid down in the CFAs Judgment in January

2004, there is no basis for the preparation of anyconcept plan with reclamation in the KTAC.

The PODP would be prepared on the basis of ano reclamation scenario and the TPB wouldbe recommended to adopt this approach inconsidering the revision to the Kai Tak OZPs. If the investigations on KTAC could produce cogentand convincing materials for the project proponentto meet the over-riding public need test in the

enduing phase of the Kai Tak ComprehensiveReview, these results would be submitted to theTPB for consideration for further amendment to theOZPs.

Since there is no land use requirement for reclaimingthe KTAC, the area, if reclaimed, would only beproposed for open space use. This also takes intoaccount the need to provide an extensive drainageculvert in the area underneath for connection to the

existing drainage system of East Kowloon, if thewater body is to be reclaimed.

It would be an under-utilization of land resourcesif the Kai Tak site were not released for urbandevelopment because of the lack of solutions toaddress the incumbent environmental problems.The preparation of the PODP in setting out therelevant urban developments should adopt theassumption that the water quality and odour

problems could be mitigated in a sustainable

manner and this is to be conrmed under the EIAOprocess in due course.

Regarding the general aspiration for water-basedrecreation activities at KTAC, it should be notedthat apart from the incumbent water quality andsediment problems at KTAC, the water body is

also subject to the drainage discharge from KaiTak Nullah, Jordan Valley Culverts and the ToloHarbour Efuent Export Scheme. Since the on-going environmental initiatives are not expectedto improve the water quality of KTAC to meet thestandard for secondary contact activities, the PODPwill not plan for water-based recreation activities.Should there be an improvement of water qualityin the channel in the future, the relevant townplans can be revised to incorporate water-based

recreation facilities.

The proposal to improve water quality of the KTACthrough installation of sluice gate to control tidal owfor water sports such as dragon boat racing wouldbe subject to further consideration by consultantsand relevant departments. The other proposalssuch as pumping of the KTAC water direct to deepwater area of Victoria Harbour through submarinepipelines is inconsistent with the HATS Stage II

scheme that it would not be considered further inthe study.

The other suggestions such as incorporating KTACinto the overall design of the open space system(water park) will be further explored in the PODP.Nevertheless given the current pollution level of theKTAC, the practicality of the underwater aquariumproposal is in doubt (even after mitigation) andthus this proposal will not be investigated in the

preparation of the PODP.


14/46

13

Connectivity and Interface with SurroundingDistricts

The interface with the surrounding districts isanother concern of the community, particularly thelocal communities.

Many commenters urge to improve the vehicular and pedestrian connections between Kai Tak andthe surrounding districts, especially the KwunTong Business Area (e.g. proposed by Kwun Tongcommunity). For the connection with the SanPo Kong area, the local community request for a pedestrian connection to the future Shatin-to-Central Link (SCL) Kai Tak Station (e.g. proposedby Wong Tai Sin community).

Better integration of the transport network in Kai Takwith the surrounding districts is called for. Someconsider the existing roads (e.g. Prince EdwardRoad East, Kwun Tong Bypass) surrounding KaiTak as well as the planned SCL railway depotas physical barriers and propose to recongurethese transport infrastructures. Many advocatefor increased and enhanced pedestrian linkagesacross these surrounding roads.

Some commenters (e.g. Hong Kong Institute of Architects) raise concern on the urban designinterfaces between Kai Tak and its surrounding.Some promote smaller street blocks in Kai Tak andbetter coherence in urban form with the existingdistricts, especially Kowloon City that exhibit acharacteristic urban grid with local favour. Someconsider the planned railway depot in Kai Tak asan obstacle in achieving the above. The Wong Tai

Sin community also stresses the importance of theinterface with the heritage assets in the Tung Tauarea.

In terms of social integration, many people hopethat the Kai Tak development will improve theliving quality of the surrounding districts andact as an impetus and solution space for their regeneration. In this regard, besides improving itsoutside connections, some people also suggest for

more open space, community facilities and publichousing provision in Kai Tak.

Our Responses

We fully acknowledge the importance of connectivityand integration with the surrounding districts.The Urban Design and Landscape Master Planunder preparation will examine the urban designinterfaces between Kai Tak and the surrounding


15/46

14

districts. The coherence/transition in lot size, urbanform, townscape atmosphere and connectivity withthe surrounding heritage assets would help thenew developments in Kai Tak to blend in with thesurrounding built-up areas.

Vehicular and pedestrian connections with the

surrounding districts are important planningconsiderations in the Planning Review. Whilstthe OCPs have indicated possible connections onthe preliminary urban design master plan, moredetailed proposals would be included in the PODPto enable further discussion in the community. Theinvestigation would include enhancement of theexisting pedestrian connections and explorationfor additional linkages between Kai Tak and itssurrounding districts. The pedestrian connections

with To Kwa Wan, Kowloon City, San Po Kong andKowloon Bay areas, where appropriate, with the SCLStations, would be examined. Due considerationwould be given to design these connection pointsas gateways of Kai Tak Development such thatvisitors to the area would have a strong impressionof the new developments. The design of theseconnections would avoid major level difference soas to facilitate pedestrian movement, in particular the requirements of persons with disability.

Vehicular and pedestrian connections fromKwun Tong waterfront to Kai Tak Point werealso investigated. Preliminary discussion withconcerned departments indicated that, subjectto resolution of the technical and managementissues involved including impacts to marine trafc,pedestrian connections by an openable link bridgecould be pursued further as a long-term project. Asfor vehicular connection, since it is not justied on

trafc ground, the concept would not be pursued.

Regarding the proposals to recongure the existingPrince Edward Road East so as to reduce theenvironmental impact and physical segregation, itis necessary to point out that the existing PrinceEdward Road East locating on the outer skirt of Kai Tak is a primary distributor road carryingtrafc from districts to districts with interchange

connections and side branch road connectionslinking other parts of East Kowloon. There are alsoutility servicing infrastructures running along thisroad corridor. Realigning this major road corridor into Kai Tak would mean that the associatedinterchanges and utility infrastructure would needto be relocated/extended into Kai Tak, which wouldcause major trafc disruption and nuisances to thepublic during the construction period and involvehigh reprovisioning costs. In terms of timing, the

new road has to be completed before the major road diversion, thus imposing adverse impact to theprogramme of the Kai Tak development. Taking intoconsideration these major constraints and impacts,the proposal to realign Prince Edward Road Eastwould not be further pursued in the Study.

The demolition and reconstruction of Kwun TongBypass is also not a cost effective solution. Therelevant bureaux/departments is of the view that

the reprovisioning of the Kwun Tong By-pass byless intrusive structure e.g. by tunnel at the KwunTong waterfront would likely involve reclamation


16/46

15

and subject to overriding public need test. Thereconstruction may involve land resumption of affected areas, adverse trafc disruption during theconstruction period, other complicated technicalissues, and high construction and maintenancecosts. To have to write off the Bypass that had adesign life of more than 100 years but only been

used for 15 years would need to be fully justied.

Regarding the concern on the physical segregationimposed by the proposed Shatin-Central Link (SCL)railway depot, the Environment, Transport andWorks Bureau advises that the Kai Tak depot is anessential element for the operation of the SCL. It isrequired for providing stabling sidings for eighteentrains and allowing effective train launching tomeet service requirements of the SCL. Except for

the Kai Tak area, there is no other suitable site of sufcient size along the section of SCL from TaiWai to Hung Hom for locating the depot and theapproach tracks. Efforts have already been madeto minimize its land requirement. The currentestimated size of the depot is about 600m x 70m,which is only half of the site area initially zoned inthe OZP for the purpose.

The safety and operation problems arising froman underground depot are the major concernsin developing an underground depot for SCL.Besides, the foundations of former airport terminalbuildings left at the SCL site also raise concern fromthe cost effectiveness perspective. The study willnonetheless endeavour to integrate the depot with

the surrounding land uses through urban designand landscaping measures. Connections betweenKai Tak and Kowloon City area will be drawn upin preparing the PODP, taking into account thedevelopments envisaged in Kai Tak.

In the preparation of the PODP, the concernedbureaux/departments would be consulted on theappropriate level of provision of open space andGovernment, institution or community facilities in

Kai Tak such that the additional public facilities couldbe planned for to address the identied shortfall inthe surrounding districts. The enhanced pedestrianfacilities would help public accessibility to thesefacilities as well as to the future SCL station, for connection to other parts of the territory.


17/46

16

2.4 Development Concepts

Land Use and Development Intensity

There is general preference for more open space,recreation and community uses as well as lower development intensity as proposed in OutlineConcept Plan 3 Sports by the Harbour. Manyrespondents have commented that Kai Tak should

not be developed into high-density development,as is being taking place in Tseung Kwan O. Theyconsider that lower development intensity shouldbe pursued in the Runway Area to help shapinga more compatible waterfront development in theEast Kowloon area. Some people are worriedthat higher density developments may obstructair ventilation to the surrounding districts, bringadverse trafc impact and its associated air andnoise pollution, and impose heavy burden on

existing open space and community facilities.Some consider that Kai Tak should be openedup as a public amenity rather than developed asprivate properties, which may deprive the publicfrom enjoying Kai Tak, a valuable place by VictoriaHarbour.

There are, however, other concerns on the levelof development proposed for Kai Tak. Somerespondents consider that under development

in Kai Tak would result in the search of other new development areas and thus imposingdevelopment pressure in the New Territories.Some also cast doubt on the cost and revenue of the Kai Tak Development project if only a low levelof development is pursued. The railway operatorsalso point out that a suitable level of developmentis required to sustain the SCL railway stationsproposed in Kai Tak.

Many commenters also raise concern that the major development components like cruise terminal,multi-purpose stadium, refuse transfer station, etc.are xed proposals on the OCPs that alternativeland use proposals are not put forward to enablemore thorough discussion in the community andthere seems to be few choices left for the public.


18/46

17

Our Responses

We fully recognize the community aspiration for quality urban environment and sufcient publicspaces. In the ensuing study process, a range of preliminary technical assessments (including air ventilation assessment, trafc assessment and

environmental assessment) will be undertakento ensure the broad technical acceptability of thePODP. Adequate open space and communityfacilities will also be planned to support the plannedpopulation. In view of the decreasing growth rate of the HongKong population as well as the developmentpotential in the other parts of the territory (especiallythe New Territories), there is no population target

set for Kai Tak Development. In determining theland uses and development intensity of Kai Tak, wewill strike a balance among quality environment,public spaces/facilities provision, vibrancy of citylife, technical feasibility and the nancial viability of the scheme, to ensure the long-term sustainabilityof the Kai Tak Development.

The public comments on the development intensityof Kai Tak is consistent with the approach being

pursued in the OCPs as well as in the preparationof PODP that lower development intensity wouldbe planned in the Runway Area while higher development intensity would be planned in thevicinity of the SCL station to capitalize on therailway transport system. This would be subjectto a maximum domestic plot ratio of 5.0 andnon-domestic plot ratio of 9.5 to be conrmed byndings of relevant technical assessments. Asthere is no housing target for the Kai Tak site,

the level of development would be worked out onthe basis of land use distribution, urban designconsiderations and technical and sustainability

assessments. Since the piling structure for thepublic housing sites at North Apron Area has beencompleted, these sites would be developed to highdevelopment intensity at domestic plot ratio of 5.5 to 6.3 as mentioned in the public consultationdigest for the Stage 2 Public Participation.

The key development components, e.g. multi-purpose stadium complex, cruise terminal, etc. areland use proposals incorporated in the approved KaiTak OZPs. The Planning Review is tasked to ne-tune these land use proposals, which have obtainedpolicy support for locating in Kai Tak. During Stage1 Public Participation, these components haveobtained considerable support from the public.They have therefore been incorporated into theOCPs, with suitable revisions to meet the latest

requirements. We have nonetheless strived topresent different planning concepts and land usesin the three OCPs to facilitate public discussionin Stage 2 Public Participation. Further publicinvolvement/discussions in the PODP stage is stillrequired to assess the public acceptability on thedetailed planning of these land use proposals inthe PODP.


19/46

18

Ofce Node/Commercial Uses

Some commenters (e.g. the Real Estate Developers Association of Hong Kong, ofce developers/users in Kowloon Bay) question the need for anew ofce node in Kai Tak, given the potentialsupply of ofce in San Po Kong, Kowloon Bay

and Kwun Tong Business Areas. Some also castdoubt on the synergy between the new ofce nodeand the stadium, which may adversely affect theutilization of the stadium facilities and the vibrancyof the area, particularly during nighttimes. In moregeneral terms, some people are concerned thatlarge-scale commercial development may render Kai Tak out of place with its local neighbourhoodsand with its cultural heritage.

Some commenters nevertheless consider Kai Taka suitable location for another ofce/commercialnode, which is in need in Hong Kong. Some(Hong Kong Policy Research Institute) advocatedeveloping the ofce node as an ofce park.Some (e.g. Democratic Alliance for the Bettermentand Progress of Hong Kong, the Hon Albert Chan)suggest establishing a government village in KaiTak. Others are in support of some commercialdevelopment (e.g. shopping street) near the

planned stadium and along the runway, which mayenhance the vibrancy of the place. Some alsoconsider commercial uses important in generatingemployment opportunities (e.g. Liberal Party).

Our Responses

According to the HK 2030 Study, Hong Kong isexpected to maintain its role as an internationalnancial centre and a regional business centre (i.e.

the gateway to China). Hong Kong will continueto attract foreign rms to set up their regional

headquarters or ofces here. Being Mainlandsspringboard to the world, more Mainland privateenterprises are expected to establish operationsin Hong Kong. While the former would requirehigh-grade ofces at prime locations, many of thelatter already established here tend to be smalland medium-sized enterprises demanding less

prime locations. To foster and consolidate HongKongs role, there is the need to plan ahead toensure adequate supply of suitably located landfor premier ofces and accommodation for generalbusiness uses to suit different needs. It is envisagedunder Stage 3 of the HK2030 Study that about 3.1million m2 of premier ofce space and 5.5 millionm2 of general business space respectively may berequired between now and 2030. Although the futuredemand is subject to many uncertainties, there is

the need to formulate a exible strategy, which canrobustly respond to different circumstances.

Under the HK2030 Study, demand is expected tobe met rstly through exhausting existing vacantstock, projects under construction, redevelopmentand other known projects under planning. Thisshould include the ofce supply available inKowloon Bay, Kwun Tong and San Po Kong. Yet inthe long-run, there is still a need to identify further

provisions to meet the potential shortfall especiallythat of the CBD Grade A ofces as the opportunitiesfor new Super Grade A ofces at the existingCBD are limited. Many of the sites in the CBD areheld under multiple ownerships and are too smallfor premier ofce developments. Besides, there isonly limited supply of Government sites in the CBDand re-provisioning of the existing uses is requiredbefore redevelopment can take place. Continuedexpansion of the CBD may generate local and

cross-harbour trafc congestion, which is requiredto be resolved by the Government.


20/46

19

The HK 2030 Study indicates that a critical mass(with a GFA not less than 500,000 m 2) is a successfactor of a premier ofce centre. Kai Tak has beenidentied as the remaining location in the mainurban area able to provide a well-designed urban

environment and integrated infrastructure to meetsuch requirement. An ofce development witha critical mass of about 500,000 m 2 GFA wouldbe planned in Kai Tak. This would, however, be

just part of the land use components of Kai Tak,alongside with housing, sports and recreation andtourism uses.

The proposed ofce node in the PODP will becomplemented by a mix of uses including retail

shops, restaurants, business hotels and servicedapartments, all set within a pleasant environmenteasily accessible by mass transportation. Goodplanning and design could ensure all-time vibrancyat the ofce node.

Generally speaking, adequate mixed commercialspaces (for ofce, retail and hotel) will be providedin Kai Tak to create a vibrant district, which isattractive to both local and overseas visitors and

which may serve as an impetus to encourage theregeneration of the surrounding districts. Efforts

will also be paid to design these commercial spaces

sensitively and to blend them well with the Kai Takneighbourhoods.

Regarding the suggestion to reprovision theGovernment Secretariat and Legislative Councilin Kai Tak, the Administration has advised that theplanning objective is to develop the Tamar site as theprime civic core of Hong Kong, with the new CentralGovernment Complex, new Legislative CouncilComplex and civic place as the major development

components. The suggestion to reprovision theGovernment Secretariat and Legislative Council inKai Tak has yet to be substantiated by planning andfeasibility studies and such studies will take time.The Tamar site, on the other hand, went through thestatutory public consultation and planning processand necessary feasibility studies. Preparatorywork for the Tamer development project has beeninitiated. Early implementation of the Tamar project will help address the ofce space shortage

problem long faced by the Government Secretariatand the Legislative Council, and would give timelyrelief to the construction sector hard hit by highunemployment.

Housing

There are diverse views on the type and densityof housing developments in Kai Tak. Somecommenters (e.g. Real Estate Developers

Association) advocate for high-quality and low-density housing development in Kai Tak (especially


21/46

20

in the Runway Area). Many others however call for maximizing the benets of Kai Tak for the generalpublic. In particular some object to low-densityhousing along the runway, which they opinewould benet only a small group of people. Somecommenters call for more public housing estates inKai Tak, which in addition to providing a balanced

mix of public and private housing in the area, couldalso act as decanting housing to facilitate theredevelopment of the surrounding districts. Otherssuggest converting the committed public housingsites in North Apron to private housing or other uses.

Some commenters support housing developmentaround the planned stadium to enhance thevibrancy and utilization of the latter. Some however

are concerned with the potential noise impact of the stadium on the surrounding residents and their aesthetic compatibility.

Residents of Laguna City strongly object to theproposed high-density high-rise housing option inKaolin Mine site as depicted in Outline ConceptPlans 1 and 2. They are concerned about the visualimpact of the development onto Laguna City andthe ridgeline, its impact on air ventilation, its trafc

impact and its burden on the surrounding openspace and community facilities, particularly in viewof the existing high-density high-rise residentialdevelopments in Lam Tin and Yau Tong. Insteadmany of them prefer the proposed Government,Institution or Community (G/IC) use option as

shown in Concept 3. Others propose using the sitefor open space.

Our Responses

In determining the type and density of housingdevelopment in Kai Tak, the Study Team will take

into consideration, among others, the intentionsto:

improve the built environment as highlightedin the Hong Kong 2030 Study, Final Reportof Team Clean and the Further Urban DesignStudy for Planning and Development of South East Kowloon

capitalize on land and transportation potential(of the railway stations)

establish Kai Tak as an urban designshowcase for Hong Kong

enhance the vibrancy of the place


22/46

21

In view of these considerations, the Study wouldadopt 5.0 as the maximum domestic plot ratio, withlower plot ratio at prime waterfront site. The typeof housing provision in terms of public or privatehousing would be decided at the implementationstage in order to provide maximum exibility to bestmeet the latest demand in future. An exception

on the development intensity would be the twocommitted public housing sites in the North Apronarea, the piling work of which has largely beencompleted.

We will also endeavour to address the concernon the aesthetic compatibility of the stadium withits surrounding developments and to enhancetheir synergy in the study process. The projectproponent will also provide the necessary mitigation

measures for events at high noise level to addressthe noise concern. Furthermore, the main stadiumis a designated project under the control of theEIAO and environmental impacts such as noisewill be addressed to acceptable levels.

The concern of the residents of Laguna City aboutthe proposed high-density high-rise residentialdevelopment in the upper part of the ex-KaolinMine site, and their preference for G/IC use or

open space is noted. The site falls outside theKai Tak OZPs and is predominantly zoned G/ICon the current Cha Kwo Ling, Yau Tong, Lei YueMun OZP. In view of the current proposals for theTseung Kwan O Lam Tin Tunnel (part) and arefuse transfer station in the lower part of the siteas well as the need to protect the existing greenbackdrop, there is the need to examine the wholesite comprehensively, including the suitable landuses for the remaining part of the site.

Multi-purpose Stadium Complex

Many commenters, in particular the sports andlocal communities, support the development of amulti-purpose stadium complex in Kai Tak. They

consider this complex important in promotingsports development in Hong Kong since manyof the existing sports facilities in the territoryare inadequate and becoming obsolete. Somenevertheless stress that the development of thestadium complex should be able to support thesports development policy. Some also raise queryon the needs for the stadium and are worried thatit may become a white elephant. They also querywhether it would be left vacant during non-event

days, particularly when another sports ground isbeing constructed for the East Asian Games atTseung Kwan O.

Many, in particular the sports community, agreethat the accessibility and central location of Kai Takare crucial in promoting the popularity of the sportsactivities among the general public, in attractingsponsorship for the sports events and in enhancingthe commercial viability of the stadium.


23/46

22

Some nonetheless object to locating the stadiumin Kai Tak (e.g. the Hon. Albert Chan) and suggestalternative locations (e.g. Tseung Kwan O or theNew Territories) to free up the land in Kai Tak.Some commenters also raise concern on the

potential impacts of the stadium to its surrounding,particularly in the aspects of noise, trafc and crowdcontrol. In this regard, some suggest placing thestadium at the tip of the runway to minimize itsimpacts, which, in turn, can also create an iconicdevelopment at the harbour-front. Others suggestlocating it at the north-eastern corner of the North

Apron to free up the waterfront area.

Some people raise query on the 24 hectare site

area required for the stadium complex, particularlygiven the present no-reclamation scenario of theKai Tak development and in view of the TseungKwan O Sports Ground under construction. Othersadvocate the provision of commercial, supportingsports training and/or recreational facilities within/around the stadium complex to enhance their synergy and maximize their benets to HongKong. Some commenters (especially the sportscommunity) advocate the use of the multi-purpose

stadium complex for a variety of sports (e.g.international swimming complex, international ice

skating ground, large scale table tennis competition,car racing, minority sports) and other uses.

Some indicate that the Kai Tak site offers the onlyopportunity for development of a multi-purposestadium complex for many years to come. Somecommenters suggest that the stadium complex canintegrate with the Metro Park so that the stadiumcomplex and the open space would form a hugeleisure and sports hub. Others suggest dividingthe stadium complex into several smaller ones andmerge them with the Metro Park, applying designguidelines to ensure innovative and quality designand holding design competition for the facility(Hong Kong Institute of Planners).

Our Responses

In 2002, the Home Affair Bureau (HAB) hasestablished three major policy directions for sportsdevelopment in Hong Kong. These three policydirections are to promote sport-for-all, to achievesports excellence in high level competitions and todevelop Hong Kong as a major sports events capital.The Sport Commission and its three committees,

namely the Community Sports Committee (CSC),the Elite Sports Committee (ESC) and the Major


24/46

23

Sports Events Committee (MSEC), have been setup to advise Government on overall sports policy inHong Kong including the implementation of thesepolicy objectives. The objectives and functionsof the stadium complex are fully compatible withand contributory to the above sports developmentpolicy.

The need of a new stadium has been conrmedby a recent study commissioned by HAB. Thedevelopment of a new stadium would nurture thedevelopment of a sustainable sporting culturein Hong Kong, serve as an important physicalmeans of attracting broader interest in sports of allkinds, and provide a exible venue that is capableof accommodating a wide range of large-scaleevents.

The HAB has engaged consultant to conductinga study to ascertain the expressed demand fromthe Sports Federation and Olympic Committee of Hong Kong, China (SFOC), the National Sports

Associations (NSAs). The consultant would alsoassess the latent demand for other types of eventslikely to be hosted in the new stadium complex.

At the same time, the MSEC is devising newmeasures to attract more large-scale sports events

to Hong Kong.

When the main stadium is used for a major sportsevent, the secondary stadium and/or the indoor arena would be used as warm-up facilities. Duringthe non-event days, these facilities would be usedfor sports training and other community sportsevents such as school sports competitions. Theintention is to develop the whole stadium complexinto a hub for spectator sports and as well as active

sports participation. Both organized use or casualbookings for the sports facilities during the non-

event days will be held to create a high throughputto the facilities.

As advised by HAB, the choice of the site has beenmade after an extensive search of sites throughoutHong Kong by their planning consultant. After careful consideration, Kai Tak is considered as

the most suitable site because the area is readilyavailable, conveniently located and in proximity tothe proposed SCL. The conguration of the sitesurrounding can be designed in such a way thatthe operation of the events in the stadium complexwould not cause nuisance to the nearby residentialand commercial buildings. It would providesynergy with neighbouring district developmentand revitalize local economy by bringing tangibleeconomic benets to the nearby areas.

Within Kai Tak, the stadium complex site has beenlocated in the southern part of North Apron areasuch that it can be served by the SCL and CentralKowloon Route. The main stadium would beequipped with a retractable roof to address thenoise issue. To minimise the noise impacts to thesurrounding developments, consideration would begiven to impose building height controls as well assuitable design measures in the stadium complex.

The location in the southern part of North Apronarea for the stadium complex is preferable in viewof the proximity to mass transit railway system,sizable site area and the considerations of theexisting constraints, such as Airport Tunnel, Kai TakNullah, etc. As for other suggested locations at thetip of the former runway, it would be located awayfrom the existing/planned railway service, which isconsidered important for transportation link with

the rest of the territory. The northern part of theNorth Apron area has been committed for public


25/46

24

housing development, the foundation of which haslargely been completed. Located further inland, itwould be less able to form a magnicent landmarkby the waterfront. Providing an open view or maintaining the stepped height prole towardsthe stadium at such an inland location would alsoimpose constraints to the development potential of

Kai Tak.

Regarding the concern on the site area requiredfor the stadium complex, according to HABspreliminary design, more than half of the currentlyproposed 24 ha site is set aside as open spacesurrounding the main stadium and the other sportsfacilities to facilitate safe and effective circulationand crowd dispersal purposes. These openspaces would minimize nuisance caused by the

crowd before and after major events. There is noincentive whatsoever to occupy more land thanthe stadium complex requires as it would bringabout signicant resource implications in its futuremaintenance and management.

The HAB, through the planning consultant, is inprocess of consulting the SFOC and NSAs abouttheir views on the detailed provision of sportsfacilities at this complex. The consultant would

shortly come up with a proposal of facilities. Asregards the ancillary commercial facilities, theHAB would engage a nancial consultant to thestudy the necessary provisions to ensure that thecomplex would be a self-contained facility and beable to generate sufcient revenues to maintain itslong-term viability.

Making reference to the events held overseas,the HABs planning consultant would identify non-

conventional sports events that could be staged

in the stadium complex in order to maximize itsutilization and enrich the contents of our major sports event calendar. The consultants woulddo likewise for potential major non-sports events,

which could be held in Hong Kong upon completionof the stadium complex.

The integration of the stadium complex with theMetro Park, connectivity with the waterfront area,view corridor towards Lion Rock and suitable urbandesign guidelines to ensure innovative and qualitydesign will be further explored in the preparation of the PODP. Regarding the suggestion of dividingup the stadium complex into four small projects,

HAB is of the view that all four components of the stadium complex should be designed anddeveloped in a holistic manner so that the functionsof these facilities would be complementary toeach other, and they would share some commonfacilities / open space surrounding them. For these reasons, HAB considers that having a singleproject incorporating all the components should bea more desirable option. As the planning of thestadium complex is still at a very preliminary stage,

the methods of nancing and procurement have


26/46

25

yet to be decided, it seems pre-mature to consider the option of holding a design competition for thestadium complex.

Cruise Terminal

Many commenters, particularly the tourism industry

and local community, support the early developmentof the proposed cruise terminal in Kai Tak to boosttourism development of the territory and to provideemployment opportunities. They point out thatHong Kong lags behind other cities in providingsuch cruise-mooring facilities while cruise travel isa rapidly expanding eld in the world.

Many commenters express that a cruise terminallocation by Victoria Harbour is important in

attracting tourists. Some also opine that thecruise terminal will enhance the attractiveness of Victoria Harbour. Some consider the longstandinginternational reputation of Kai Tak advantageousin the future promotion of the cruise terminal tooverseas tourists. Others also see the cruiseterminal an impetus in stimulating the developmentof its surrounding districts.

Some commenters however raise questions

on the location of the cruise terminal at Kai Tak.Some suggest developing the cruise terminal inHung Hom, which has an existing pier and deepwater depth, or West Kowloon, which is in closeproximity to the city centre/airport (e.g. proposedby Designing Hong Kong Harbour District and RealEstate Developers Association of Hong Kong).Some other suggest locations include North Point,Disneyland and Cyberport. Some also querywhether the cruise terminal could be located at other

locations of the Study Area, e.g. inner Kowloon Bay,

closer to the existing developments (e.g. LiberalParty, Hong Kong Institute of Planners).

Some commenters are concerned with thepotential impacts of the cruise terminal, includingneed for substantial transport infrastructure, noise,air quality, water quality and visual impacts, and

its impact on the public access to the waterfront,and the developments planned in the vicinity of thearea. Others suggest applying design guidelinesto ensure innovative and quality design and holdingdesign competition for the facility (e.g. Hong KongInstitute of Planners).

Our Responses

As advised by Tourism Commission (TC), according

to the latest consultancy study on the marketdemand for cruise terminal facilities commissionedby Government, Hong Kong needs an additionalberth as soon as possible, and 1 to 2 berths in thelong run in order to enable Hong Kong to developinto a regional cruise hub. If a cruise terminal isnot developed now, Hong Kong will not be able tocope with the expected growth in the region, andwill lose out to competitors.

Tourism Commission TC also advises that KaiTak is considered to be an ideal location for thedevelopment of cruise terminal facilities in view of its location within the Victoria Harbour, its technicalfeasibility and its capability of expansion to meetthe long-term market demand. It is the onlylocation within the Harbour with such expansioncapability. Feedback from the cruise industry alsoemphasized that any new cruise terminal facilitiesof Hong Kong should be located within the Victoria

Harbour as it is the most prominent icon of Hong


27/46

26

Kong that any visitors arriving by cruise ship wouldexpect to see and to cruise in.

Adequate water depth, turning basin and landsidedevelopable space are the three key requirementsin determining the location of the cruise terminalwithin Kai Tak. In this regard, the proposed location

at runway tip would be best able to meet the aboverequirements when compared to the rest of Kai Tak.With shallow water depth of 2-6m and proximity toTo Kwa Wan Typhoon Shelter, substantial dredgingand closure of the Typhoon Shelter would berequired should the cruise terminal be located ininner Kowloon Bay. The Kwun Tong waterfront isalso not suitable for locating a cruise terminal for similar reasons.

In order to service the developments located in theRunway area, a dual two-lane district road and alocal two-way road have been proposed, whichwould also service the proposed cruise terminaland tourism node developments. The cruiseterminal trafc can gain access onto Road T2 at theSouth Apron area, which leads to Central KowloonRoute. The Central Kowloon Route will bring thetrafc to much wider area of the territory.

Environmental impacts of a cruise terminal wouldbe localized. They are primarily related to cruiseoperations such as air emissions and noise.Regarding the potential visual of the cruises, it isexpected that the sizes and massing of the cruisesberthing at the cruise terminal will vary, and their berthing is transient in nature. The location of the cruise terminal at the runway end serves tominimize any potential environmental or visualimpacts to surrounding sensitive receivers.

To minimize the potential restriction of the cruiseterminal on public access to the waterfront, it isproposed to design a landscaped deck on top of thecruise terminal for public enjoyment. To addressthe safety concern on cruise terminal operation,the public landscaped deck would be subject tosuitable management measures.

The future developer of the cruise terminal andtourism node sites should make reference to theUrban Design and Landscape Master Plan for KaiTak in taking forward the tourism projects. Besides,comments received through public participationwould be considered carefully.

Aviation-related Facilities

Many commenters are in support of retainingcertain remnant of the longstanding aviation culturein Kai Tak.

Some aviation groups are currently accommodatedat the historical building clusters at the north-westerncorner of Kai Tak (i.e. Hong Kong Aviation Cluband Hong Kong Air Cadet Corps). They requestfor conrmation of their permanent headquartersin Kai Tak.

Some aviation groups and enthusiasts (e.g. SaveKai Tak Campaign) strongly advocate for a lightaircraft runway (two proposals of around 1000mor 800m in length respectively, the latter being anelevated runway) to promote aviation activitiesand related education training, and to promotediversied aviation development in Hong Kong.They express that similar facilities are currentlylacking and also not forthcoming in the rest of


28/46

27

Hong Kong. Other aviation-related suggestionsinclude providing an aviation development centre(with an aviation academy, an aviation museumand an aviation business centre), and re-creatingthe ex-airport control tower in Kai Tak.

Some commenters advocate relocating the heliport

to the northern end of KTAC just beyond the CentralKowloon Route interchange. They further proposelowering the heliport to ground level and expandingit for the use of the non-government aviation groupsand emergency services departments (Community

Alliance on Kai Tak Development). Some suggestlocating the heliport on top of the cruise terminal(Liberal Party). Others however are concernedwith the potential noise impact of the proposedheliport and suggest locating it outside the Study

Area e.g. Lantau Island.

Our Responses

The need to maintain and highlight the aviationheritage in Kai Tak is acknowledged. Taking intoaccount the public views and the overall planningconcept for Kai Tak, the PODP would explore anaviation park concept at the runway end. This parkis intended to provide the exibility to accommodate

compatible aviation facilities at this historicallysignicant site with a gorgeous harbour view at theimplementation stage, including re-creating the ex-airport control tower.

The Home Affairs Bureau (HAB) and EconomicDevelopment and Labour Bureau (EDLB) supportthe retention of the existing site at Sung Wong ToiRoad to accommodate the Hong Kong AviationClub and the Hong Kong Air Cadet Corps facilities.

Given the nature of their operations in promotionof aviation sports and youth development as anon-prot making organisation, the PODP woulddesignate the existing site for Government,Institution and Community purposes.

The intention of the proposed light aircraft runway

proposals to promote aviation development in HongKong is appreciated. The two runway proposalsnevertheless would have the following implicationsto Kai Tak development.

1000m long light aircraft runway -

(a) Civil Aviation Department (CAD) has advisedthat the operations of light aircraft on theproposed runway shall be subject to the

safeguarding requirements in accordancewith the obstacle imitation surfaces. Theobstacle limitation requirements would limitthe maximum building height along the runwayarea from 5mPD at the airstrip to 105mPD(about 35 storeys) at the north western end of the North Apron area. The economic lossesdue to such restriction could be substantial.

(b) Following the closure of Kai Tak Airport, the

previous building height restrictions imposedin the Kowloon Peninsula has been lifted anda number of high-rise buildings have beenbuilt and others in the pipeline. The obstaclelimitation may affect the development potentialof the Sung Wong Toi Road area and, subjectto detailed investigation, may interface with therecently completed redevelopment projectstherein.


29/46

28

(c) On the seaward side, the obstacle limitationrequirement would limit the vessel heightsfrom 3m to 45m throughout Kowloon Bay andVictoria Harbour (Hung Hom to Sai Wan Hosection). The proposed cruise terminal willbe in conict with the runway, which, basedon Tourism Commissions requirement, is

intended to receive cruise liners of 62 to65m high. This would require relocation of the cruise terminal outside Kowloon Bay andhinder its location within the Victoria Harbour.

800m long elevated light aircraft runway

(a) As advised by CAD, it would still limit thevessel heights along the southern portion of the ex-runway and have implications on the

operation of the cruise terminal in the area aswell as its possible future expansion.

(b) On the landside, it would still limit the maximumbuilding height along the runway area and asa result constrain the development potential of the Kai Tak site.

(c) CAD also raises great concern on the feasibilityof the elevated runway, given the lack of

similar precedent elsewhere and internationalrequirement.

(d) The elevated runway involves high costs andwhether appropriate uses can be identiedunderneath the runway is in doubt.

In view of the above concerns and the competinguses for the prominent ex-runway, the light aircraftrunway proposals would not be further investigated

in the preparation of the PODP. We appreciateproposals from the aviation groups for light aircraftrunway development and may consider searchingother suitable sites.

As advised by the EDLB, the proposed heliportin Kai Tak is required to meet the forecast growthof cross-boundary helicopter services in thelonger term beyond 2015. The consultancy studycompleted by EDLB in 2002 has recommended

to locate this heliport at Kai Tak as a long termproject. The proposed location of the heliport atthe runway end serves to minimize its potentialimpacts to the surrounding sensitive receivers andnot imposing constraints to the future development.

Acceptable noise levels could be achieved throughsuitable mitigation measures like selection of ight path, restriction on helicopter types andcontrol on frequency and operation hours.Further environmental impact assessment would

ensure the broad environmental acceptability of


30/46

29

the proposal. The heliport is primarily for cross-boundary services to be operated by commercialoperators. EDLB will consider if aviation groupshave specic proposals for shared use of theheliport. Regarding the constraints imposed by theelevated deck of the heliport on the waterfront siteat Kai Tak Point, this proposal would be examined

further for possible mitigation measures.

CAD has advised that the suggestion to relocatethe proposed heliport to the northern end of KTACand lowering it to ground level is not operationallyviable, in terms of the difculty in establishing twotake-off climb and approach surfaces, separated bynot less than 150 degree, and in terms of the largeportion of such surfaces over land. To establish suchsurfaces would require the imposition of stringent

height limits on the development in the vicinityof the heliport, thus affecting the developmentpotential in its vicinity. Furthermore, subject todetailed scheme, this proposal may affect publicaccessibility to the waterfront and affect pedestrianconnectivity around the northern end of the KTAC.Its potential impacts (e.g. noise to waterfront usersand surrounding residents) are likely to increaseas compared with the proposed elevated positionat the runway end. It would not be able to share

the customs, immigration and quarantine facilitieswith the cruise terminal located at the runway end,which would increase the operation costs of theheliport.

Urban Design and Landscape Framework

The public generally agree with the urban designand landscape considerations as presented inthe Public Consultation Digest (e.g. ridgeline

protection). Further suggestions received include

shoreline protection, view corridor towards LionRock with building height control on two sides(through Tung Tau Estate), lookout point atrunway end, highlighting the end vista of BoundaryStreet/ Prince Edward Road East/ Argyle Street,protecting 20% of ridgeline as viewed from runwayend, providing green links of varying widths and a

barrier-free city.

Some commenters are also concerned thathigh-rise development in Kai Tak may affect air ventilation to, and the views from, the surroundingdistricts and within Kai Tak. This is particularly thecase for the development near Kowloon City, SanPo Kong, along the runway and in Cha Kwo Ling.Some local residents also query whether high-rise development in Cha Kwo Ling will affect the

preservation of the ridgeline. On building heightrestriction, Hong Kong Institute of Planners suggestadopting meter above Principal Datum (mPD)instead of number of storey for better control andto provide for a range of building heights to createvisual interest.

Some commenters advocate for more distincturban design concept with local character in KaiTak (e.g. Hong Kong Institute of Planners, Hong

Kong Institute of Architects). In this regard, somepeople suggest adopting an excellent urban designscheme with rich landscaping along the south-western edge of the runway. Other suggestionsinclude integrating land uses to ensure mixedusage, creating a shopping street along the runway,turning the runway into islands, and re-instatementof the urban thoroughfare, with mixed commercialand residential development as the central spine inKai Tak Runway as proposed in the Kai Tak OZPs.

Others support providing smaller land lots, avoiding


31/46

30

huge podia in the residential areas (Hong KongInstitute of Planners) and providing communal car park (Hong Kong Institute of Architects) so as toencourage vibrant street life, a character of HongKong. Some also propose echoing the urban formand street pattern of the surrounding areas in thefuture Kai Tak development.

In an alternative concept plan received (submittedby Philip Liao & Partners Ltd., LD Asia and MVAHong Kong Ltd.), it is proposed to place the multi-purpose stadium complex to the north-easterncorner of North Apron area, with the Metro Parkstretching from the stadium to the waterfront. Highdensity housing, commercial/mixed use and G/IC uses form their fringe. South Apron is mainlyused for medium density housing, and the Runway

Area, for low density housing with the cruiseterminal/tourism node at its end. Water bodies arealso created in the runway area and North Apronarea to create an image of bringing the Harbour to the people. Extensive landscaping is proposedincluding a sloping green on cruise terminal deck.

Some commenters suggest accentuating culturalheritage of Kai Tak in its concept. In this regard,Community Alliance on Kai Tak Development

advocate for a time line or a severance legacyheritage cluster (including Kowloon StreetFestival Esplanade with building height control onits two sides, Kowloon Festival Market, DragonFord Bridge Elevated Promenade, Chinese-styledCovered Walkway linkages with Nga Tsin WaiVillage and Kowloon Walled City) to highlight theheritage value of the place and to promote localcommunity economy/tourism. Some also suggestpreserving the runway in respect of its historical

value.

In view of the prominence of Kai Tak site, thereare also suggestions to hold design competitionsor more detailed urban design studies for selectedparts of the Study Area.

Our Responses

The communitys aspiration for turning Kai Takinto an urban design and landscape showcase for Hong Kong is fully recognized. The commentsregarding shoreline protection, view corridor towards Lion Rock, lookout point at runway end,end vista of Boundary Street/ Prince Edward RoadWest/ Argyle Street and variety of green linkswill be further examined in the preparation of thePODP, and Urban Design and Landscape Master Plan. Others more detailed suggestions such

as a barrier-free city, where appropriate, will beexamined further in the detailed design stage.

Regarding the suggestion to provide a view corridor towards Lion Rock through Tung Tau Estate(Block 23), Housing Department advises that theredevelopment of housing block is currently atplanning and design stage. They will take intoaccount the suggestion for a view corridor towardsLion Rock in the redevelopment of the Tung Tau

Estate.

In formulating the building height prole of Kai Tak,we will endeavour to strike a balance betweendesign quality and land utilization. In this regard, inline with the recommendation of the Urban DesignGuidelines for Hong Kong, this Study wouldadhere to the preservation of 20% of Kowloonridgeline as viewed from Quarry Bay Park andHong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre.


32/46

31

Air ventilation assessment will be conducted inthe study process to address the air ow issuesin the Kai Tak Development. Design compatibilitywith the surrounding districts will also be takeninto consideration. The comments regarding theapproach in building height control so as to allowinterest in building developments will be carefully

considered in the preparation of the PODP and thestatutory OZPs.

We fully appreciate the many public suggestionsreceived on urban form, character and urbandesign concept. The urban design inputs to thePlanning Review would be strengthened in theensuing study process. The Urban Design andLandscape Master Plan under preparation willpresent a comprehensive framework with distinct

urban design and landscape concepts for further discussion in the Stage 3 Public Participation. Theconcerns on local characteristics, cultural heritage,preservation of historical sites, such as Fish TailRock, Former Cattle Depot, Kowloon Walled Citypark, Nga Tsin Wai Village, Sung Wong Toi, etc.will be addressed. The Master Plan will also makeprovision for connections with the heritage assetsin the vicinity of Kai Tak.

Regarding the alternative concept plans received,the suggested stadium location at the north-easterncorner of North Apron area will infringe upon thecommitted public housing site (piling works for which has completed) and the existing AirportPolice Station. The suggested high-density housingsites aligning Prince Edward Road East would besubject to high trafc noise level. Compared withthe Runway Area, the suggested location of theMetro Park in North Apron area would be less able

to integrate with the KTAC and the Harbour, and tocapture the long-term opportunity for water sportsin these water bodies. These suggestions thereforewould not be further pursued in the PODP. In order to preserve the shape of the runway as part of theaviation heritage of Kai Tak, the design conceptof open water channels would not be pursued

further in the PODP. The proposal to introduceextensive landscaping and water bodies into theopen space system is appreciated and would befurther considered in the detailed design of theopen spaces.

An Urban Design and Landscape Master Planwould be prepared to guide the preparation of the PODP, there would be further ne-tuning intomore detailed urban design proposals to guide

the further development in the feasibility andimplementation stage. At this stage the main taskis to re-establish the planning framework for theex-airport site. Design competition for specicprojects, where appropriate, would be consideredin the implementation stage.

Open Space, Recreation and CommunityFacilities

There is a general call for more open space,recreation and community facilities in Kai Tak, suchthat the development can benet the general publicand to help address the shortfall in the provision of these facilities in the surrounding districts.

Some people suggest providing a larger Metro Park(e.g. Community Alliance on Kai Tak Development,Hong Kong Policy Research Institute). Thereare also suggestions to integrate the Metro Park/


33/46

32

open space with the multi-purpose stadium/KTAC, dedicate the entire runway for open space/leisure/tourism/community/cultural facilities (e.g.Community Alliance on Kai Tak Development,East Kowloon District Residents Committee),locate the Metro Park at runway tip (e.g. RealEstate Developers Association of Hong Kong)

and to design the Metro Park along environmentaleducation theme (East Kowloon District ResidentsCommittee).

The public generally advocate for an accessiblepromenade and waterfront enhancement. Somerequest for the extension of the promenade to thesurrounding districts. The residents of LagunaCity also call for more open space and communityfacilities in Cha Kwo Ling and object to further

housing development there.

Some commenters point out the value of Kai Tak,being a major the harbour-front site. They suggestminimizing community facilities to best capture theprecious land for housing development. Some arealso concerned with the nancial viability of theKai Tak project if the provision of open space andcommunity facilities is too generous.

Our Responses

In view of the congested urban environment, thegeneral public support the provision of more openspace and recreation facilities in Kai Tak. Apartfrom the regional open spaces, e.g. Metro Parkand waterfront promenade, the local and districtopen spaces, recreation and community facilitieswould be provided in accordance with the HongKong Planning Standards and Guidelines. In

consultation with relevant bureaux/departments,additional open space, recreation and community

facilities would be provided to address identiedshortfalls in the surrounding districts or to achievespecic policy objectives. This approach will beadopted in the preparation of the PODP.

The comments regarding better integration of thestadium complex with the Metro Park, as well as the

connectivity of the sports facilities with the waterfrontarea would be investigated in the preparation of the PODP. The comments regarding the size,location, theme and design of the Metro Park or individual open spaces would also be examinedfurther in the study process. The PODP will planfor a continuous waterfront promenade from ToKwa Wan to Kwun Tong and make provision for itsconnections to the surrounding districts.

Given the size of the runway area of about 67ha,it would be under utilization of land resourcesif the whole area is designated for open spaceand recreation purposes. The open space andrecreation facilities should be provided at theappropriate location to serve the local communityas well as the whole population.


34/46

33

Marine-related Facilities

There are polarized views between the marinefacilities operators and the general public(especially the local communities) on the future of the existing marine facilities. Many harbour-frontoperators (e.g. Hong Kong Cargo-vessel Traders

Association Ltd., Hong Kong & Kowloon Motor Boats & Tug Boats Association Ltd. and the PublicCargo Area Trade Association) strongly urge for the retention of the existing To Kwa Wan TyphoonShelter and Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter. Theypoint out that the typhoon shelters concernedprovide critical safety shelters for vessels duringtyphoon time. They object to the proposed marinain the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter in view of thepotential conicts between the two types of vessels

and the effective reduction in the usable space of the typhoon shelters. They also query the demandfor typhoon shelter space for pleasure vessels inthe two typhoon shelters concerned.

Many harbour-front operators also advocate for the retention of the Kwun Tong and Cha Kwo LingPublic Cargo Working Areas (PCWAs). They pointout that the two PCWAs are generally engaged intrades that are dependent upon the availability of

low-cost berths and cargo-handling space. ThesePCWAs serve local need and distribute and collectgoods in the region. They are of vital importanceto the mid-stream operations, logistics industryand the materials recovery industry in Hong Kongand are essential parts of the operation of the port.They also provide signicant job opportunities for low-skilled workers.

These harbour-front operators are of the view that

should PCWAs and typhoon shelters be removedto make way for developments, these facilities

should be reprovisioned in other suitable locationsacceptable to the industry on a one-to-one basis.

Many other commenters (especially the localcommunities e.g. Kwun Tong District Council,residents of Laguna City) however urge theconversion of the PCWAs into a continuous public

promenade, which they point out, will act as animpetus for the regeneration of the Kwun TongBusiness Area. Some doubt the need of thetyphoon shelters. They regard them constraints towater circulation and lower the visual quality of thearea. Suggestions such as replacing the typhoonshelters for water sports or enclosing the KTACand Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter into a basin for the purpose have been received (e.g. Hong Kong,China Rowing Association and Joint Conference

on the Concern for Planning and Development of Kai Tak).

Some people call for the provision of more water-based activities and other marine-supported landuses (e.g. water sports facilities, marina, water taxiand ferry services). Some nevertheless suggestdecommissioning/relocating the existing KowloonCity Ferry Pier and public pier. There is alsoquery the demand for the existing passenger and

dangerous goods vehicular ferry piers at KwunTong.

Our Responses The strong concern on the future of the marinefacilities around Kai Tak is acknowledged. It isnoted that typhoon shelters are important facilitiesto protect lives and properties at sea. MarineDepartment regularly reviews the usage and

demand of typhoon shelter space, and examinesthe need of its future supply. Recent assessment


35/46

34

of typhoon shelter space requirements revealsthat, the forecast demand for typhoon shelteringspace slightly exceeds the existing supply inthe next decade. Whether there is still scope tomeet the future demand depends very much onthe continual availability of the sheltering spaceprovided by the Kwun Tong and To Kwa WanTyphoon Shelters. The two typhoon shelters wouldbe retained in the PODP for further discussion inthe Stage 3 Public Participation. The operation

of the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter neverthelessis likely to be affected by the proposed Road T2during construction and the proposed leisure boatrides across the Typhoon Shelter. Subject to further engineering study, designation of a no anchoragezone over the Road T2 tunnel may be required.The effect on the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter willbe assessed.

The OCPs have proposed the provision of marina

within Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter so as to enhancethe provision of waterfront recreation facilities. It isnoted that to allow pleasure vessels to use part of thetyphoon shelter would create competing demandfor typhoon shelter space within the Harbour.Increasing typhoon shelter space by extending/relocating the breakwaters is subject to meetingthe overriding public need test for reclamation.These two typhoon shelters are commonly usedby large size steel workboats but the majority of

pleasure crafts are made of breglass or woodenplanks, their co-existence within the typhoon

shelters would entail compatibility problem. Takingthe above problems into consideration, the PODPwill not indicate a marina.

According to the assessment based on the dataavailable in 2002, the Hong Kong Port Master Plan 2020 Study suggested that there was room to

phase out some PCWAs by 2020. The study alsopointed out that despite suggestions for potentialclosure of some PCWAs, prior considerationshould be given to economic impacts, communityimpacts and poli

stage2 pp report eng

Documents