8 February 2004


Mrs Carrie Lam
Permanent Secretary for Housing, 
Planning and Lands (Planning and Lands) 
9/F, Murray Building,
Garden Road,
Hong Kong


Dear Carrie,

Central Reclamation Phase III

Thanks for sight of the Review Report on Central Reclamation Phase III (CRIII) which is compiled with reference to the High Court's “three tests” and the draft further supplementary report on CRIII which is drafted with reference to the Court of Final Appeal (CFA)'s “single test” on “overriding public need”. 

I fully agree with the CFA's judgment which has emphasized that “there must not be any undue delay in applying for judicial review. With any reclamation proposal, substantial public funds and third parties rights would be involved. It is of obvious importance and in the interests of good public administration that all concerned should know where they stand as soon as possible so that the earliest opportunity for any challenge should be promptly taken. If not, the courts have the discretion to refuse relief.” We consider this guidance by the CFA a relevant consideration in this CRIII case.  CRIII is no longer a ‘reclamation proposal' but ‘reclamation works in progress'. Any prolonged suspension or termination of the project would have serious contractual and financial implications. Substantial public funds are involved and third parties rights have been created under CRIII to the extent that the consequences of aborting the CRIII now would be very costly.

From initial proposal to start of work, CRIII has gone through a due diligence of five years, involving extensive public consultations. I have read the booklet All About Central Reclamation Phase III and note that many statutory and advisory bodies, professional bodies and affected parties have been consulted on CRIII. As a consequence of the long and thorough plan-making process, the Government consulted the Central and Western and Wan Chai District Councils in March 2000 regarding the proposed CRIII works, and received no adverse comments. In June 2000, the CRIII project and road works were gazetted under the Foreshore and Sea-bed (Reclamations) Ordinance and the Roads (Works, Use and Compensation) Ordinance respectively. The Finance Committee of LegCo approved funding for CRIII's detailed design and construction on 28 April 2000 and 21 June 2002 respectively. The works contract was awarded on 10 February 2003, and is scheduled to last for 55 months. As seen from above, CRIII has undergone a process of due diligence and scrutiny. 

I do not think that the reclamation extent in CRIII is excessive. In fact, the 18 hectares required for reclamation under CRIII is already the minimum. The government has already scaled down the area of reclamation from the originally proposed 32 hectares to the current 18 hectares so as to address the concern of the public. 

Some people hold the views that a reclamation of smaller scale will be able to accommodate the Central-Wan Chai Bypass (CWB). However, the Central – Wan Chai Bypass (CWB), to be constructed in the form of a tunnel, will need a sea wall to protect it from the sea waves. Although the government cares to adopt a new design making use of wave chambers to absorb the impact of sea waves, the shoreline will still need to move slightly northward with the construction of the sea wall. 

There are also suggestions that the CWB should be built as an elevated road similar to the Island Eastern Corridor. Apart from the aesthetic problems it might create, the elevated road would, as in the case of the Island Eastern Corridor, leave the public no access to the waterfront along its route. Building a bored tunnel below existing seabed level is not an option either. With such a deep tunnel, it is impossible to make connections with the road networks at Wan Chai North and Central Reclamation I, and also the Rumsey Street Flyover as the road gradients will be too steep. As an alternative to solve the traffic congestion in the area, the proposal on adopting the electronic road pricing (ERP) also came into the debate. However, the problem of intrusion of privacy is an issue too real to be ignored. Hence, I believe that the most reasonable, practical, environmentally acceptable and optimal option is to construct the CWB within CRIII area in form of a tunnel. 

Other than the CWB, the CRIII will also provide necessary land for construction of other important transport infrastructure and facilities. They include other supporting roads network, an extended overrun tunnel for MTR Hong Kong Station, construction of a new “Star Ferry” Pier and two public piers, a 150 m long berth for the Chinese People's Liberation Army Forces Hong Kong, reprovisioning of the affected government and private cooling water pumping stations. 

Environmentally speaking, the CRIII reclamation can enhance the tidal flow and water quality in the Victoria Harbour by eliminating a zone of rather stagnant water. The reclamation will also accommodate a waterfront promenade, which will allow both local citizens and tourists visiting Hong Kong access to the Victoria Harbour. 

I recall that in 1999, the Government presented the minimum reclamation option to the LegCo Panel on Planning, Lands and Works and the scheme was generally accepted. As chairman of the Legislative Council Public Works Sub-committee at that time, I do not recall any strong objections to the CRIII project from my colleagues during relevant meetings. I also note that the Government presented the amended draft OZP to the then Central and Western District Board and various professional bodies including the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, Hong Kong Institute of Planners, Hong Kong Institute of Architects, Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors, Hong Kong Institute of Landscape Architects and the Real Estate Developers' Association of Hong Kong. All of them generally supported the minimum reclamation option.

In conclusion, I strongly feel that the CRIII should continue and that works resumed as soon as possible. The longer the period of suspension, the higher the compensation claims will be. As long as public money is involved, the government must act responsibly and professionally and fully resume the CRIII works. The costs arisen from any further delay in the CRIII works are substantial and involve high social cost and the whole community will have to bear. A most important cost, for example, is that the community will have to bear with the traffic congestion along the northern shore of Hong Kong Island in the years ahead. I sincerely hope that the harbour activists will take into account this social dimension in their objections.



(signed)
Ir Dr the Honourable Raymond Ho Chung-tai