Designing Hong Kong E-Newsletter: Wednesday, 23 April 2008

Harbour masters or disasters?
How to move forward after the court ruling on temporary reclamation? Below are two relevant articles and a link to the court ruling itself.

Harbour Masters or Disasters?
Article by Christine Loh, chief executive of the think-tank Civic Exchange and chairperson of the Society for Protection of the Harbour.

Good and bad reclamation: Consult the public over harbourfront
Article by Paul Zimmerman, Founding Member, Designing Hong Kong

High Court Judgment on "Wanchai Temporary Reclamation"
http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=60524&QS=%28hcal%7C116%2F2007%29&TP=JU

Harbour Masters or Disasters
By Christine Loh and first published in the South China Morning Post on April 17, 2008

Why is it so hard to leave Victoria Harbour alone? More than a decade ago, legislation was passed to protect it from overexploitation by means of reclamation and, five years ago, the law was tested in court. The court determined that reclamation could only proceed if it could be proved there was an overriding public need - an objective test, where the proponent had to show there was no other viable alternative, and any reclamation must be kept to a minimum.

The Town Planning Board lost the case over a plan for the Wan Chai-Causeway Bay waterfront. One of the most objectionable features was the creation of a large harbour park, which was deemed by the board to be nice, as it provided a new recreational amenity in the middle of the harbour. The plan failed the overriding public-need test and, since then, the government has been working on a new plan.

There have been many rounds of public consultation, and reams of documents and drawings released. The government's Central-Wan Chai bypass required about 15 hectares of reclamation. Public discussion focused on how best to keep reclamation to a minimum.

Officials did not tell anyone they were also working on a plan involving extensive reclamation of another 10.7 hectares - or about 1.15 million square feet. Half the reclamation would affect the Causeway Bay typhoon shelter, and a new 500-metre-long breakwater would be created, protruding far out into the harbour. This piece of reclamation would be even more extensive than the harbour park.

The government claimed there was no need to inform the public because officials had determined the reclamation they were labouring on in secret was "temporary" in nature.

It was only through community vigilance that the temporary reclamation plan was uncovered and, despite many requests for information, little was made known about the exact size and location of the work involved, or a timetable for removal. The public only learned the full story through another court case. The government tried to get away with extensive reclamation without having to undergo the overriding public-need test. On March 20, the court ruled that all reclamation had to observe the law.

It turns out that the additional reclamation is mainly to provide mooring space for the private yachts of a nearby club. The government should have considered alternatives. Moorings could be provided elsewhere for a number of years while the bypass is built.

Yacht owners, who probably want to keep their boats near their clubhouse, would be inconvenienced, but there is no justification for taking another very large bite out of Victoria Harbour for this purpose. Surely, in this case, the public interest of harbour protection should prevail.

Now that this plan has been derailed, any blame for its delay must surely fall on those in government who devised it in secret. Instead, however, the administration wants to be seen as the victim, not the perpetrator. So, the Society for Protection of the Harbour, the litigant, is being unreasonably blamed for the delay.

There are previous examples of "temporary" reclamation outside the harbour becoming permanent. Indeed, once a piece of water is reclaimed, it is no longer protected by law. That is why the law covers all reclamation; it would be dangerous to exempt "temporary" work.

The current situation is simple: does the additional 10.7 hectares of reclamation pass the overriding public-need test? Could alternative moorings be found, obviating the need for reclamation? Had the government sought alternative space from the start, there may well have been no court case and no delay to the construction of the bypass. That would have been the sensible thing to do, and also the much cheaper option for the public purse.

So, why take another chunk out of the harbour?

Good and bad reclamation: Consult the public over harbourfront
By Paul Zimmerman, based on a letter published in the South China Morning Post on April 23, 2008

The mishandling of reclamation goes beyond the issues raised by Christine Loh Kung-wai.

The temporary reclamation fiasco, and the pending court action on whether an elevated road with less reclamation is better than a tunnel, is now causing serious delays for the Central-Wan Chai bypass and enhancement of the harbourfront.

Only with an independent and transparent process can Hong Kong efficiently decide on sustainable solutions for the final harbourfront.

Open debate rather than sneaky tricks and legal fights will help us understand which societal needs are important enough to warrant reclamation.

So where is the government going wrong?

First, it did not demonstrate that the temporary reclamation for the tunnel was the minimum needed, nor did it demonstrate that the funding was in place for the timely removal of the reclamation.

Second, secretly deciding on the breakwater may appear expedient but, had the government discussed the options with the community, it would have established the overriding public need for protected water, breakwaters and piers and related reclamation.

Given our weather and sea conditions, small vessels require these for safety and they contribute to making the harbour a vibrant community facility. According to the Marine Department, the five existing shelters in Victoria Harbour barely meet the minimum required during typhoons.

The alternative - placing moorings outside - will limit the harbour to large vessels and a fairway only.

As for building the Central Wanchai Bypass as an elevated road or in a tunnel, the community agrees that unimpeded visual and physical access of the harbour is an overriding need that warrants the minor additional reclamation for a tunnel.

The Protection of the Harbour Ordinance halted the minting of land premiums from the harbour in 1997, and we now need to fix the waterfront so that people can enjoy it.

The starting point is to put up all proposals for a fair debate. The record of the discussion then form the cogent materials which establish what reclamation, if any, is needed.

Good plans for work at Kai Tak, Central, West Kowloon and Lei Yue Mun have been shelved without public consultation.

The only "needs" the government has debated in public since the Court of Final Appeal judgment are solutions for vehicular transport.

If we continue down this path, we will end up with only roads along the entire harbourfront, and that would be a sad outcome.

If the mailing doesn't display correct, click here to read the online version


	Harbour masters or disasters? How to move forward after the court ruling on temporary reclamation? Below are two relevant articles and a link to the court ruling itself. Harbour Masters or Disasters? Article by Christine Loh, chief executive of the think-tank Civic Exchange and chairperson of the Society for Protection of the Harbour. Good and bad reclamation: Consult the public over harbourfront Article by Paul Zimmerman, Founding Member, Designing Hong Kong High Court Judgment on "Wanchai Temporary Reclamation" http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=60524&QS=%28hcal%7C116%2F2007%29&TP=JU Harbour Masters or Disasters By Christine Loh and first published in the South China Morning Post on April 17, 2008 Why is it so hard to leave Victoria Harbour alone? More than a decade ago, legislation was passed to protect it from overexploitation by means of reclamation and, five years ago, the law was tested in court. The court determined that reclamation could only proceed if it could be proved there was an overriding public need - an objective test, where the proponent had to show there was no other viable alternative, and any reclamation must be kept to a minimum. The Town Planning Board lost the case over a plan for the Wan Chai-Causeway Bay waterfront. One of the most objectionable features was the creation of a large harbour park, which was deemed by the board to be nice, as it provided a new recreational amenity in the middle of the harbour. The plan failed the overriding public-need test and, since then, the government has been working on a new plan. There have been many rounds of public consultation, and reams of documents and drawings released. The government's Central-Wan Chai bypass required about 15 hectares of reclamation. Public discussion focused on how best to keep reclamation to a minimum. Officials did not tell anyone they were also working on a plan involving extensive reclamation of another 10.7 hectares - or about 1.15 million square feet. Half the reclamation would affect the Causeway Bay typhoon shelter, and a new 500-metre-long breakwater would be created, protruding far out into the harbour. This piece of reclamation would be even more extensive than the harbour park. The government claimed there was no need to inform the public because officials had determined the reclamation they were labouring on in secret was "temporary" in nature. It was only through community vigilance that the temporary reclamation plan was uncovered and, despite many requests for information, little was made known about the exact size and location of the work involved, or a timetable for removal. The public only learned the full story through another court case. The government tried to get away with extensive reclamation without having to undergo the overriding public-need test. On March 20, the court ruled that all reclamation had to observe the law. It turns out that the additional reclamation is mainly to provide mooring space for the private yachts of a nearby club. The government should have considered alternatives. Moorings could be provided elsewhere for a number of years while the bypass is built. Yacht owners, who probably want to keep their boats near their clubhouse, would be inconvenienced, but there is no justification for taking another very large bite out of Victoria Harbour for this purpose. Surely, in this case, the public interest of harbour protection should prevail. Now that this plan has been derailed, any blame for its delay must surely fall on those in government who devised it in secret. Instead, however, the administration wants to be seen as the victim, not the perpetrator. So, the Society for Protection of the Harbour, the litigant, is being unreasonably blamed for the delay. There are previous examples of "temporary" reclamation outside the harbour becoming permanent. Indeed, once a piece of water is reclaimed, it is no longer protected by law. That is why the law covers all reclamation; it would be dangerous to exempt "temporary" work. The current situation is simple: does the additional 10.7 hectares of reclamation pass the overriding public-need test? Could alternative moorings be found, obviating the need for reclamation? Had the government sought alternative space from the start, there may well have been no court case and no delay to the construction of the bypass. That would have been the sensible thing to do, and also the much cheaper option for the public purse. So, why take another chunk out of the harbour? Good and bad reclamation: Consult the public over harbourfront By Paul Zimmerman, based on a letter published in the South China Morning Post on April 23, 2008 The mishandling of reclamation goes beyond the issues raised by Christine Loh Kung-wai. The temporary reclamation fiasco, and the pending court action on whether an elevated road with less reclamation is better than a tunnel, is now causing serious delays for the Central-Wan Chai bypass and enhancement of the harbourfront. Only with an independent and transparent process can Hong Kong efficiently decide on sustainable solutions for the final harbourfront. Open debate rather than sneaky tricks and legal fights will help us understand which societal needs are important enough to warrant reclamation. So where is the government going wrong? First, it did not demonstrate that the temporary reclamation for the tunnel was the minimum needed, nor did it demonstrate that the funding was in place for the timely removal of the reclamation. Second, secretly deciding on the breakwater may appear expedient but, had the government discussed the options with the community, it would have established the overriding public need for protected water, breakwaters and piers and related reclamation. Given our weather and sea conditions, small vessels require these for safety and they contribute to making the harbour a vibrant community facility. According to the Marine Department, the five existing shelters in Victoria Harbour barely meet the minimum required during typhoons. The alternative - placing moorings outside - will limit the harbour to large vessels and a fairway only. As for building the Central Wanchai Bypass as an elevated road or in a tunnel, the community agrees that unimpeded visual and physical access of the harbour is an overriding need that warrants the minor additional reclamation for a tunnel. The Protection of the Harbour Ordinance halted the minting of land premiums from the harbour in 1997, and we now need to fix the waterfront so that people can enjoy it. The starting point is to put up all proposals for a fair debate. The record of the discussion then form the cogent materials which establish what reclamation, if any, is needed. Good plans for work at Kai Tak, Central, West Kowloon and Lei Yue Mun have been shelved without public consultation. The only "needs" the government has debated in public since the Court of Final Appeal judgment are solutions for vehicular transport. If we continue down this path, we will end up with only roads along the entire harbourfront, and that would be a sad outcome.