Rezoning Request – The Central District (Extension) Outline Plan No. S/H24/6

Proposals to Amend the Outline Zoning Plan to Reduce the Amount of Reclamation, Reduce the Amount of Commercial Development and Reduce the Extent of Roads

Volume 1 Planning Statement

保護海港協會有限公司 Society For Protection Of The Harbour Ltd

September 2004 Rezoning Request – The Central District (Extension) Outline Zoning Plan No. S/H24/6

Proposals to Amend the Outline Zoning Plan to Reduce the Amount of Reclamation, Reduce the Amount of Commercial Development and Reduce the Extent of Roads

Volume 1 Planning Statement

Contents Page Page Letter to the Town Planning Board 3 7. and Landscape Strategy 22 1. Introduction 5 8. Proposed Amendments to the Outline Zoning Plan 29 2. Background 5 8.1 Reduction of Reclamation within CRIII (Item A) 29 3. Principles 5 8.2 Reduction of Reclamation outside DRIII (Item B) 29 8.3 Deletion of the CDA Zone (Item C) 29 3.1 Protection of the Harbour Ordinance 5 8.4 Reduction in Size of OU(2) Zone (Item D) 29 3.2 The Judgements 7 8.5 Deletion of Roads P1 and D6 (Item E) 29 3.3 Sustainable Development 7 8.6 Deletion of Roads P2 (Item F) 29 3.4 Reclaimed Land should only be used for Public Uses 7 8.7 Consequential Changes to “GIC(2)” and “O” Zones 29 4. Issues 8 near the Wan Chai West Sewage Screening Plant 4.1 The Central – Wan Chai By-Pass (CWB) 8 8.8 Consolidated Plan 29 4.2 The Extent of Reclamation within CRIII Area 8 9. Procedural Matters 32 4.3 The Extent of Reclamation Outside CRIII Area 8 4.4 Excessive Land for Commercial Development 9 9.1 Minimum Reclamation and the CFA Decision 32 4.5 Traffic Planning and The Road Network 17 9.2 Referral of Plan back by CE 32 4.6 Seawall Design and Cooling Water Pumping Stations 19 10. Conclusion 32 4.7 The Red Areas 19 4.8 PLA Berth 19

5. Public Costs of Reclamation 21 Volume 2 Technical Appendices 6. Stopping the Excessive Reclamation Now in Progress : 21 Variations to the Existing Contract Appendix 1 Engineering Appendix 2 Traffic Impact Assessment

Consultants : Masterplan Ltd. MVA (HK) Ltd. Images by Superview Co.

2

Rezoning Request – The Central District (Extension) Central District (Extension) Outline Zoning Plan Court reclamation met the three tests which had been Outline Zoning Plan No. S/H24/6 Decision established in the judgement. The CEC also decided at the same time that, under Section 12 of the Town 2.2 The SPH also initiated a Judicial Review against the Planning Ordinance, the Central District (Extension) 1. Introduction existing provisions of the Central District (Extension) Outline Zoning Plan did not need to be referred back to Outline Zoning Plan and the extent of reclamation that the Town Planning Board so the content of the plan 1.1 This rezoning request is made by the Society for was to be undertaken by Government. The Board is could be reviewed by the Board. The content of the Protection of the Harbour Ltd. (SPH). This request is probably aware that the High Court did not rule in favour CRIII Review was made public at the Legislative made directly to the Town Planning Board so as to of the SPH and found that the Chief Executive in Council on the 28 April 2004, but it is understood that place before the Board the various arguments that have Council (CEC) had acted within the law when deciding this has never been referred to the Town Planning been raised in relation to the extent of reclamation not to refer the Outline Zoning Plan back to the Board Board and the Town Planning Board has not been proposed on the Central District (Extension) Outline for re-consideration of the impact of the Court of Final invited to reconsider the content of the Outline Zoning Zoning Plan and the uses proposed on that reclamation Appeal judgement on the provisions of that Outline Plan to ensure that it is satisfied that it complies with the (See Figure 1). Zoning Plan. PHO.

1.2 Many of the points raised have been argued in the High 2.3 It is significant that in the High Court judgement the 2.6 The technical submissions made by the SPH to the Court and in the Court of Final Appeal in relation to the judge declined to consider the technical submissions High Court pointed out what are considered to be SPH’s attempts to minimise the amount of reclamation. placed before him by the SPH as he ruled that these inadequacies of the Government’s Review and Many of the points have also been raised by many other were not matters for his consideration. By doing this he shortcomings in the traditional engineering approach groups and individuals in recent months, but no formal only considered the procedural aspects of the case, adopted in the preparation of reclamation proposals. It submission has been made to the Board, which is the indicating that these technical matters were planning is significant to note that the Government’s Review Statutory Planning Authority. This submission proposes matters which should be more appropriately considered concluded that every part of the CRIII reclamation met several amendments to the current zoning on the by the Town Planning Board. The technical or planning the requirements of the judgment and the PHO, and not Outline Zoning Plan for consideration of the Board. aspects of the arguments put by the SPH have one single change was proposed. therefore not been considered by any court, nor by the 1.3 This Planning Statement is supported by Volume 2 Town Planning Board. 2.7 In presenting these rezoning proposals to the Board this which contains Technical Assessments relating to Sea submission is based on the technical responses made Wall Design, Water Supply for Air Conditioning and 2.4 This submission therefore is made under the to the Governments Review by the SPH to the High Traffic Impact Assessment. administrative procedures that the Board has Court and on subsequently formulated new information. established, for the consideration of proposed amendments to plans that may be initiated by members of the public. It is made in the context of the relevant 2. Background court decisions, the clarified interpretation of the 3. Principles Protection of the Harbour Ordinance (PHO), and the Wan Chai North Outline Zoning Plan Court Decisions increased public dissatisfaction with the proposed In presenting this proposal to the Board it may be reclamation which is contained within the Central helpful to briefly state the principles which the applicant 2.1 The Board is aware of the Judicial Review that the SPH District (Extension) Outline Zoning Plan. The Board is considers are appropriate in providing the context for initiated in relation to the reclamation proposed on the therefore requested to give serious consideration to the consideration of the rezoning proposals. Wan Chai North Outline Zoning Plan and the proposed changes to the Outline Zoning Plan contained judgements of the High Court and the Court of Final in this submission and to initiate the process to have the Appeal in relation to that Plan. These judgments Plan suitably amended. 3.1 Protection of the Harbour Ordinance clarified the interpretation of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance by establishing certain tests which Government’s Review of the Central Reclamation 3.1.1 The PHO provides the fundamental starting point for the are helpful in determining how the Harbour should be Phase III (CRIII) Board when it considers any planning proposal which protected. involves reclamation of Victoria Harbour. The 2.5 Following the decision of the High Court on the 8 July fundamental parts of the PHO are:- 2003 which declared that the Wan Chai North Outline Zoning Plan did not meet the requirements of the PHO (a) The Harbour is a natural public asset for the the Government carried out an internal review of the people of Hong Kong. CRIII contract. That Review was submitted to the CEC (b) The Harbour should be protected for future on the 2 December 2003 and based on the information generations. provided in the Review it was decided that the CRIII

5

. FIGURE 1 The Central District (Extension) Outline Zoning Plan No. S/H24/6 Showing the Extent of the CRIII Reclamation 6 (c) All public officers and bodies, such as the Town Court Of Final Appeal to objections in 1999. It was also not applied in any Planning Board, have an obligation to protect the serious way in the Government Review in 2003. Harbour and to minimise any future reclamation. 3.2.3 On the 9 January 2004 the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) gave judgment on the Wan Chai North Outline Zoning 3.3.3 The Board has issued a “Vision Statement for Victoria 3.1.2 The Board prepared several plans involving reclamation Plan and established the following: Harbour” in October 1999. In that statement the Board after the PHO became law. The preparation of these clearly recognises the need to adopt sustainable plans were based on legal advice which was (a) that there must be an “overriding public need” to development principles as the basis for planning uses subsequently found to be erroneous in relation to the reclaim the harbour and it must be a “compelling around the Harbour. The challenge is to really apply Wan Chai North Outline Zoning Plan. As the same and present need”. these principles in the process of assessing the likely basis was used for the preparation of the Central District (b) that “where there is a reasonable alternative to impact of a reclamation proposal and the alternatives (Extension) Outline Zoning Plan, which was prepared reclamation, an overriding need for reclamation considered for achieving the desired effect or for before the Wan Chai North Outline Zoning Plan, then it would not be made out”. overcoming a particular perceived problem. is the applicant’s view that the Central District (c) “In considering what is a reasonable alternative, (Extension) Outline Zoning Plan could not have been all circumstances should be considered”. prepared in accordance with the PHO and the Board (d) “the extent of the proposed reclamation should 3.4 Reclaimed Land should only be used for Public should therefore review it and make the amendments not go beyond the minimum of that which is Uses proposed in this submission. required by the overriding need” (e) “that each area proposed to be reclaimed must 3.4.1 In the three court cases the judges have indicated that be justified". the extent of land to be reclaimed must be justified 3.2 The Judgments (f) that “cogent and convincing” materials should be rigorously. However, once the extent of reclamation placed before the decision-makers, to enable has been determined then the use of the reclaimed land High Court them to be satisfied that the test is fulfilled. is not a matter for the PHO. Instead it then becomes a matter of the zoning of the land and therefore a direct 3.2.1 The High Court judgment on the 8 July 2003 provided 3.2.4 The CFA judgment also clearly stated that public responsibility of the Board. three tests which would need to be applied when a officers and bodies such as the Board had a continuing decision maker considered whether an area of responsibility to ensure that the harbour was protected 3.4.2 The SPH is strongly of the view that any land which is reclamation was justified, namely: from reclamation. reclaimed should only be used for public uses or for the enjoyment of the public. This view is derived from the (a) there had to be a compelling, overriding and fundamental point that the harbour is a declared public present public need which clearly outweighed the 3.3 Sustainable Development asset. Should part of that public asset be removed public need to protect the harbour; through reclamation then the land which is created (b) there had to be no other alternative to implement 3.3.1 The principles of Sustainable Development are should be made available to be used and enjoyed by the undertaking for which it was proposed, and embodied in the PHO and have been supported in the the public in exchange for being deprived of the use of (c) that any invasion of the harbour should be High Court and CFA judgements. The prime that portion of the harbour. A scarce public resource, restricted to the minimum impairment necessary sustainable objective is to protect and ensure that the water, has been depleted and in its place a lower to implement the undertaking. Victoria Harbour is retained as a natural asset for future order public resource, land, has been created. The generations of Hong Kong people. This requires that public should therefore have the absolute right to 3.2.2 This judgment also indicated that before any reclamation of any part of Victoria Harbour is the proper use of that land. approved the Board must be satisfied that all other (a) a sustainable development approach should be alternatives to reclamation have been fully considered. 3.4.3 This therefore should become an important planning adopted, requiring a different mind-set from the This fundamental approach was made mandatory when policy for the Board. It should ensure that the zoning of traditional engineering approach. the PHO was made law in 1997. It therefore requires a reclaimed land should be for public use, with minimal (b) every piece of reclamation must be justified in its significant change in mindset, to find solutions by non- use of portions for , and zones which will own right and in a systematic way. This did not engineering means before resorting to sacrificing part of ensure that the public will be able to properly enjoy the take place in the Review. the harbour by approving reclamation. public land created. This land clearly should not be for sale for commercial or residential purposes which would 3.3.2 This sustainable development approach was not applied effectively mean that the public asset of the harbour has to the original planning and justification for the Central been turned into private assets of real estate. This District (Extension) Outline Zoning Plan, even when the principle is the fundamental starting point in proposing Board reduced the amount of reclamation in response rezoning of areas within the Outline Zoning Plan which are currently part of the Harbour.

7 4. Issues Sea Water Pumping Stations 4.3 The Extent of Reclamation Outside CR III Area

This section addresses several issues which are 4.2.2 However, the east-west alignment of the seawall along 4.3.1 To the east of the CRIII contract boundary is an area of relevant to the rezoning proposals which are detailed in the northern extent of reclamation is subject to serious proposed reclamation which has not been committed for Section 6. question. For various reasons the amount of (see Figure 1). This includes areas zoned reclamation proposed by the alignment of the sea wall is for "Waterfront Related Commercial and Leisure Uses", excessive and could be reduced. This is summarised in "Open Space", a "Marine Basin" and for Roads P2 and 4.1 The Central – Wan Chai By-Pass (CWB) this section and developed further by technical D11. information in Volume 2. The amount of reclamation 4.1.1 For simplicity only, in this submission the need for the could be reduced by: 4.3.2 This area was excluded from the Government Review CWB will not be addressed. That does not mean that it as it is outside the contract limits for CRIII. The extent is not an important issue that the Board will have to (a) Reconsidering the need for sea water for air and justification for the amount of reclamation address. In the review process for the Wan Chai North conditioning, the actual need for sea water within this area has therefore never been assessed Outline Zoning Plan it will remain a major issue to be pumping stations, their design and location on in terms of the CFA Judgement. It would also appear considered and the Board will have to be satisfied that the water front; unlikely to be assessed as part of the Board's review of there are no other reasonable, sustainable alternatives the Wan Chai North Outline Zoning Plan as it is not to the need for the road, the size of the road or the (b) Reconsidering the sea wall design so that it located within that plan. It is therefore essential that the alignment of the road and the reclamation of the requires less space and less reclamation; Board takes this opportunity to review the proposals harbour to accommodate it. within this easterly portion of the plan and to delete (c) Request the PLA to reconsider the need for and those parts which cannot meet the "over-riding public extent of the space required for the berth as it is 4.1.2 it is also relevant to point out that while the Central need" test. a significant constraint on the design and extent Reclamation has been largely justified on the need for of the reclamation; the CWB the funding for the construction of the full 4.3.3 It can be concluded based on the technical information length of this road is yet to be approved by the (d) Relocate the sea wall to remove the "Red Areas" provided in Volume 2 that there is no justification for any Legislative Council. The Legislative Council and the - those extra areas of reclamation which cannot reclamation beyond that necessary for the CWB Board in making the relevant decisions will therefore be justified. alignment. The extent of land required for the sea wall have to ensure that due consideration has been given to can be reduced to 25 metres by using an alternative the PHO before the CWB can proceed to construction. Conclusion in Relation to Reclamation Inside CRIII design. It is also clear that the amount of land required for Road P2 and D11 can be reduced. There is no 4.1.3 In this submission it is therefore assumed that the 4.2.3 It can be concluded on the basis of the information over-riding public need to enclose the water basin or to alignment of the CWB on the Outline Zoning Plan can provided that the extent of the reclamation shown on the provide land for the “Waterfront Related Commercial be taken as the basis for determining the outermost Central (Extension) Outline Zoning Plan could and Leisure Uses” in the OU(1) zone which falls within extent of reclamation under the PHO. Anything beyond reasonably be reduced within the CRIII area by this area of reclamation i.e. on the outside of the CWB. that limit therefore has to meet the specific tests before approximately 35 metres in width, or by approximately it can be justified. 2.4ha. It is the applicant’s view that there is scope for 4.3.4 With the considerable reduction in reclamation that can changing the existing contract by way of Variation to still be achieved in this area, it would be desirable to re- implement some saving in amount of reclamation assess the form of the adjacent reclamation in CRIII so 4.2 The Extent of Reclamation within CRIII Area proposed. that a more compatible design of the sea wall alignment is achieved. The scope left for changing the 4.2.1 Figure 1 is an extract from the Central District reclamation extent in this area is of major significance in (Extension) Outline Zoning Plan and it indicates the relation to the Town Planning Board's responsibilities extent of the reclamation which is included within the under the PHO. The extent of reclamation (including CRIII engineering contract. Only this portion of the plan the Marine Basin) which can be deleted is was included in the Government Review. Within the approximately 2.2ha. CRIII area the construction of Pier 8 is well advanced and it will provide for the reprovisioning of the Star Ferry Pier. For the purpose of this submission it will be assumed that Pier 8 is fixed and the alignment of the

seawall on the western portion is therefore also fixed in a line from Pier 8 south-eastward.

8 4.4 Excessive Land For Commercial Development Commercial Development : The CDA Zone 4.4.8 Figures 3 and 4 include images showing a comparison of the existing uses on the CDA zone and the form of 4.4.1 Commercial development is proposed in two zones on 4.4.4 The area zoned “Comprehensive Development Area” at development that could be built under the present the Outline Zoning Plan - the CDA Zone and the the western edge of the Plan occupies an area of zoning for this site. Also indicated as a comparison the “OU(Waterfront Related Commercial And Leisure 5.23ha, of which 3.12ha is reclaimed land. It is stated in possible uses of this site if the following is done: Uses)” zone. They will be largely commercial the Explanatory Statement paragraph 7.3.2 that this developments with little specific relationship to the development will contain some 190,000 square metres (a) the car and Star Ferry Pier areas promenade and the harbour. of commercial/ floor space. This “” are retained as ground level public open space would be composed of two parts. which could be known as City Hall Square. 4.4.2 The proposed 4.8ha of commercial land on the Improved pedestrian sub-way connections could reclamation has not been reviewed or justified and is 4.4.5 On the eastern side a landscaped deck would be built be provided under Connaught Road to improve excessive in relation to facilitating public enjoyment of on the top of a 4-storeyed commercial and retail building pedestrian access; the waterfront and is in part an extension of the CBD (16mPD) stretching from Statute Square on the south of commercial functions. The CE was quoted on the 17 Connaught Road, almost to the new Star Ferry Pier. (b) The current Post Office site is retained zoned as October 2003 in a speech at the Australian Business This enormous building will be 420 metres long and will a “GIC” site and could be kept for public use; Awards that there would be no commercial buildings on be completely out of scale with any other building in the the reclamation. It is, therefore, a fundamental starting Central area. This building has been presented as an (c) The waterfront portion of the CDA zone is point to assess the need for an area of 4.8ha of extension of the Statute Square visual corridor, but the primarily rezoned to public open space, but two reclamation to be used for commercial purposes. size and scale and visual impact of this portion has reasonably scaled buildings with a maximum of 2 been poorly presented. storeys height are proposed for “Waterfront 4.4.3 In terms of the “overriding public need” test, the Related Commercial and Leisure Uses”. These reclamation for commercial uses of the extent and size 4.4.6 The western portion of the CDA zone permits an would serve the actual users of the Waterfront proposed fails. The commercial sites should also fail on office/retail portion of the building of some 15 storeys Park and not intended as an extension of the the consequential impact that they have for engineering high (50mPD) commercial development in front of CBD office and retail functions, which was the services, the generation of unnecessary traffic and the Jardine . This portion of the building would be effect of the CDA zone. unnecessary use of reclamation for roads to provide 320 metres long, and this would be the same length as access to the commercial sites. Reasonable the extension of the HKCEC extension (see Figure 2). alternatives exist and had these been part of the Review then the amount of land for the commercial uses, and 4.4.7 All of the land proposed for the “Groundscraper” is at the supporting roads, could be significantly reduced. present government land or part of the harbour. The Significant rezoning of these sites is proposed in this applicant is of the view that this land is a public asset submission. and should not be sold for commercial development. Instead it should be retained for public use, with the area currently occupied by the “Star Ferry Car Park” building being retained as a ground level public open space extension of Statue Square. There is no justification for placing public open space on the roof of a 4 mall.

9

FIGURE 2

Comparison of Commercial Development with the CEC Extension

Public assets should not be sold. The scale and size of the Groundscraper and Festival Commercial Developments are out of scale with developments in the vicinity. They are also massive structures out of scale with public enjoyment of the waterfront.

10

FIGURE 3

Present and Prospective Uses of CDA Zone

Government Proposal

Existing View from IFC towards new reclamation in front of Star Ferry with walkway to Central Ferry Piers in foreground

The western part of the CDA zone allows an office/retail portion of the building of some 15 storeys high, in effect creating an extension of the CBD functions onto an area which is currently harbour. This development permitted on the OZP will enclose the new road P2.

11

Alternative Proposal Reclaimed land retained for public use with improved pedestrian access

12

FIGURE 4

Views of Statue Square from HSBC Headquarters

Existing View

13

Government Proposal Alternative Proposal

The proposed Groundscraper will block views from Statue Square The alternative proposal is to establish a ground level system of with a 4-storey high shopping centre with landscape roof and with public open spaces, with “City Hall Square” being established the 15-storey office/retail building to the west. All of this is on where the existing Star Ferry Car Park building is located. public land, partly on new reclamation. This commercial development of 420m in length proposed by Government will enclose Connaught Road and Road P1.

14 FIGURE 5

Views over Queen’s Pier

Government Proposal Existing View

The “Festival Market” is out of scale and character. It has a wall-effect blocking public views of the Waterfront Park and Harbour and generating unnecessary traffic.

15 Alternative Proposal

This submission proposes to remove the visual barrier created by the massive waterfront commercial development, create a more expansive public park and retain public views of the harbour from City Hall

Commercial Development : The OU (Waterfront Commercial and Leisure Use) zones

4.4.9 Four sites totalling 3.4ha are zoned “Other 4.4.10 The “Festival Market ” is a very large building out 4.4.11 The applicant considers that public views from Specified Uses” annotated “Waterfront Related of scale with any other development in the vicinity. City Hall should be retained across the Commercial and Leisure Uses” on the Plan. The As can be seen from Figure 2, any proposed Waterfront Park to the harbour. The proposal is largest of these waterfront commercial building on this site will be a wall approximately to significantly reduce the scale of the developments is located in front of City all and 300 metres long, similar in length to the HKCEC "Waterfront Related Commercial and Leisure called “Festival Market” having an area of 1.72ha. extension. It will be long and will completely block Uses" building by reducing the length and Its allowable building height of 25mPD within the public views of the waterfront park and the limiting it to a building of 2 storeys height which “OU(2)” zone and could permit 7 storeys of retail harbour. The location and scale of this building is is similar to the scale of the existing buildings in and commercial uses. Other sites (OU(2) and considered to be completely out of character and the PLA Headquarters site. This building will OU(1)) to the east bordering the waterfront scale with City Hall, which is a listed heritage allow for the creation of an interesting focal promenade are smaller and have respective building. Of particular importance is the dramatic point of activity in the Waterfront Park while not height restrictions of 25mPD and 15mPD. The negative impact that it will have on the view from creating a massive visual barrier in front of City sites allocated for these developments however, the entrance of City Hall across Edinburgh Place. Hall. are quite extensive as shown on the plan at Figure 5 illustrates the existing situation with views Figure 2. over Queen's Pier and the impact of the proposed 7-storey building.

16 4.5 Traffic Planning and The Road Network · The extent of reclaimed land utilised for surface Man Cheung on Central Reclamation Phase 1 roads will be minimised while providing adequate (between the Railway Station and International Reassessment of Road Network and Functions vehicle access compatible with high quality Finance Centre Phase 2) and the proposed Wan Chai pedestrian areas. Development Phase II area all the way to the east of 4.5.1 The construction of the CWB will have a major impact Marsh Road. It was to be built on land formed for the by increasing the capacity of the east-west links along 4.5.3 The results of the Traffic Impact Assessment indicate construction of the CWB. the north shore of Hong Kong Island. Reductions in that there is no need for Road P2 as a through road as population growth and development on Hong Kong the CWB will only be to 70% utilised in the critical peak 4.5.6 The need for an additional surface road of some form Island since the CWB was originally proposed, make it direction and the Harcourt Road/Connaught Road providing a connection from Man Yiu / Man Cheung essential to re-assess the total road network in the corridor will have less traffic than at present. There is Street junction to the east is accepted. This is needed Central Extension area. however a need to provide a ground level link as an to accommodate the east-west traffic movements from extension of Man Cheung Street to relieve congestion the existing development at IFC and the ferry piers. 4.5.2 A full Traffic Impact Assessment has been carried out on the junctions with Pedder Street, Connaught Place However, with the removal of the “Groundscraper”, and is included in Appendix 2 and is summarised briefly and Connaught Road eastbound bottlenecks. However, “Festival Market” and the Wan Chai North development in this section. The basic assumptions that have been the extent of this road need not extend beyond Tim Wa the TIA has shown that there is no need for a Primary used for this assessment may not be the same as Avenue immediately west of the Tamar Site. If P2 was Distributor Road to provide a strategic through route. normally used in a Government traffic study, but they to be extended through as proposed on the Outline are appropriate to an area which is to be one of high Zoning Plan at present, through traffic would 4.5.7 Figure 6 shows the proposed roads that are necessary public amenity and not a commercial development area. unnecessarily be diverted to this attractive route while in this area to give access to the Waterfront Park, the The assumptions are:- the existing Connaught Road Central and the future IFC area, the City Hall, the PLA Headquarters and to Central-Wanchai would not be fully utilised. It future development on the Tamar site. Road P2 can be (a) There will be no significant development in the has been demonstrated in the TIA report that the downgraded to a local access road which terminates at Causeway Bay/Wan Chai North area, as stated parallel routes would have sufficient capacity to the Tamar Site. The new road could primarily follow the in the Inception Report for the review which is accommodate the level of developments put forward in existing surface road, Lung Wui Road, in front of the currently being undertaken by Government for this proposal or even that on the existing OZP, and PLA Headquarters. The width of the road would that area; Road P2 need not be a through route. To better progressively reduce as it approached the Tamar Site. achieve utilisation of the bypass an additional (b) The amount of development in the Central westbound on-ramp is proposed near Wanchai North. 4.5.8 To the east of the Tamar site the road becomes a local Extension area will be as proposed in this The conclusion is that the traffic should go underground access road serving the GIC sites, the Waterfront Park application with no significant commercial on the CWB rather than on the surface and severely and the proposed “OU(Waterfront Related Commercial development; bisecting the existing areas from the Waterfront Park. and Leisure Uses)” site.

In deriving the alternative road network which strives to Roads P1 and D6 (See Figure 6) 4.5.9 These significant changes to the road network can be minimize reclamation, the following principles were achieved without adversely affecting the ability to adopted: 4.5.4 The need for Roads P1 and D6 was related primarily to handle the anticipated traffic growth. It is suggested serve the traffic generated by the proposed “Festival that the link from Man Cheung Street be implemented · The CWB has been constructed at great public Market” and “Groundscraper” developments. If these on a temporary basis using the existing Lung Wui Road expense in financial terms and in terms of loss of developments were deleted, as proposed in this until such time that the CWB is opened. At that stage the harbour. It is a priority that usage of the application, these roads would be unnecessary. Instead the link would be closed and the open space linked CWB be maximised by constraining alternative the area they occupy would become part of the through to the Tamar Site. The important point is to traffic links; extensive “Waterfront Park”. There are also advantages recognise that there is no need for P2 either in the short if these roads are removed as it will eliminate the need term or the long term as the CWB will have excess · It is a priority to minimise the separation by roads for unnecessary pedestrian crossing points at the capacity by year 2016. of the existing inland area from the Waterfront “Waterfront Park”. Park; 4.5.10 The Outline Zoning Plan proposes an environmentally Road P2 friendly transport system through the waterfront area. In · A priority will be given to high quality ground level this proposal an extension to the existing tram system pedestrian links from the surrounding areas to 4.5.5 Road P2 was proposed as a 6-lane dual carriageway be provided from Sheung Wan to Causeway Bay. This the Waterfront Park; Primary Distributor road providing access to the Central was included in the original proposal and the tram and Wan Chai Reclamation areas. It was to connect reserve has been provided in CRI. This should be

17

FIGURE 6 Roads Proposed by Government and Alternative Roads Proposed in this Submission 18 extended along the waterfront to provide convenient obstacles and, after all, it is the function of good should have been applied to this reclamation when the access to the ferry piers the HKCEC and north Wan engineering to resolve difficulties and problems. Review was carried out so as to minimise the amount of Chai. It would also be an additional tourist attraction. reclamation and to enable the provision of a high quality 4.6.4 The Government proposes 29 pump cells along the new promenade. waterfront with 26 along the proposed promenade. The 4.6. Seawall Design and Cooling Water Pumping proposed reclamation beyond the CWB, which will be Stations 60m wide, is justified on the basis of providing these 26 4.7 The Red Areas pump cells. It appears from the Review that the present 4.6.1 Volume 2 provides comprehensive technical information location, arrangement, size and design of these 26 4.7.1 In the Review there were areas identified as “Red to supplement the points made in relation to the seawall proposed pump cells are used to justify about 2.4ha of Areas”. (See Figure 7). In effect these were areas of design as well as the cooling water pumping stations. reclamation. Such an extent of reclamation is reclamation which could not be justified in their own manifestly excessive. right. They fell between the adopted alignment of the 4.6.2 The seawall structures proposed by TDD in CRIII have sea wall and the CWB. The Review argued that these been assessed in light of the requirements of the CFA 4.6.5 Of these 29 pump cells, 17 are required to serve the areas could not be left un-reclaimed as they would Judgment. The proposed refinement of the CRIII existing buildings and 12 are needed for new become stagnant areas of water. This is incorrect as promenade zone and in particular the maritime design developments. 5 cells are not necessary as they were the opportunity existed for the sea wall to be realigned of the seawall structures are attached at Appendix 1, to serve the proposed commercial development on the closer to the CWB, thus eliminating the “Red Areas”. which are briefly set out as follows: reclamation which should be deleted as proposed in this These areas of reclamation have not been justified but application. 7 cells were for the Central Government will be reclaimed so as to allow for the adopted (a) Remove TDD’s proposed cooling water pump Office development at Tamar which is not to proceed, alignment of the sea wall to be built. The Review clearly stations (CWPS) in the CRIII promenade zone. and if it did, alternative cooling systems could be used identified areas of reclamation which continue to fail to These major structures are a combination of a as it would be a new building. The former restrictions in meet the CFA test and should not be reclaimed. seawall and CWPS and take up a total of 60m the use of fresh water for cooling systems imposed by between the harbour and the proposed CWB the Government have been lifted and sea water cooling tunnel. is no longer needed for new buildings. Therefore, a 4.8 PLA Berth maximum of only 17 pump cells will be needed and (b) Provide for a refined seawall structure in the even these can be further reduced as described below. 4.8.1 The PLA berth is a significant constraint on the design promenade zone, without the CWPS, which of the waterfront and the use of the waterfront by the would reduce the TDD structural set-out of 60 m 4.6.6 There are three alternatives which could reduce the public. The continued need for this berth was to only a total of 25m. reclamation needed, all of which may not have been questioned in the Legislative Council on the 27 considered by the Review: November 2003 and the answer given was that it was (c) Re-aligning the CRIII foreshore with a refined an item included in the 1994 Sino-British Defence Land seawall structure position adjoining the CWB and (a) By reduction of the size and number of the Agreement. However this pre-dates the enactment of enabling 35m of the promenade zone to be pumping stations; the PHO. saved over about a 700m length i.e. 2,450m² of (b) By relocating the pumping stations to the two reduced reclamation. sides of the new waterfront; and 4.8.2 The military dock has not been available since 1997 and (c) By providing either lagoons or reservoirs as a there are significant naval facilities provided at Too Many Pump Cells source of water. Stonecutters Island. The Review did not question the need for the PLA berth nor indicate whether this had 4.6.3 The proposals regarding pumping stations set out in the These are explained in more detail in Appendix 1. been reviewed with the PLA. It would be well worth Government Review (See Figure 7) do not show an raising this question with the PLA as it will provide much earnest effort to minimize reclamation. If such an effort 4.6.7 One of the fundamental problems with the design of the more flexibility in the design and use of the waterfront. had been made, it was inadequate and failed to comply reclamation is the location of sea water pumping with the CFA Judgment as insufficient measures were stations along the edge of the sea wall. This is not 4.8.3 In the Review, it states that the location of the berth is taken to protect and preserve the Harbour. Various required as a technical solution to air conditioning office constrained by Piers 9 and 10 in the west and the alternatives have been investigated in Appendix 1, buildings. Also, there is no need for sea water pumping cooling water pumping stations in the east. For these which could substantially reduce the extent of stations to be located along the sea wall as they reasons, it cannot be moved further south. However, if reclamation needed, either to provide the proposed compromise the design of a quality promenade and they the location of the piers and the pumping stations had pumping stations or to use a different system to achieve result in excessive reclamation. This outdated the same purpose. There are no major insurmountable approach is no longer applicable and a new approach

19

FIGURE 7 Drawing extracted from Government Review indicating Cooling Water Pumping Stations and “Red Areas” of Unjustified Reclamations 20 been thoroughly reviewed, the opposite conclusion may The Harbour as A Scarce Public Resource 5.8 The main point is that simple construction cost have been reached. assessments of the impact of various options, that 5.5 In the approach taken by TDD, the harbour is should have been considered or were considered, are considered a free resource of no value. No cost was no longer adequate. A sustainable development 5. Public Costs of Reclamation allocated to the loss of portion of the harbour relative to approach requires that a wider “public accounting” of the reduction in reclamation that could have been the impacts of projects is needed. It is no longer 5.1 The traditional engineering approach has taken a very achieved from a different seawall foundation design. appropriate that a statutorily protected public asset such narrow approach in the way it assesses costs. Usually The Review made no attempt to assess the true costs as the harbour should be given no value when this only relates to a comparison of engineering costs. or loss of “community value” resulting from the assessing whether a reclamation can be justified. A sustainable development approach requires that a proposals. The CFA Judgment made clear that broader view of costs be taken when assessing the long whereas in the past land had been a scarce resource, term value of a proposal to the community. the enactment of the PHO in 1997 clearly indicated that what remained of the harbour was even more precious. 6. Stopping the Excessive Reclamation Now in 5.2 In the Review, no justifications of cost were considered, The harbour has a real value as a statutorily protected Progress : Variations to the Existing Contract other than of the options for the types of foundations for public asset. The concept of “opportunity cost” could be sea water pumping stations, and these were only the applied to the loss of areas of water from the harbour. It 6.1 The evidence is clear that excessive reclamation is now engineering costs. could be considered that the harbour had a public value being carried out in Central. The unnecessary provision greater than the value of further land that could be of salt water pumping cells and the reclamation of the 5.3 Reduced reclamation should result in less public reclaimed from it. “Red Areas” cannot be reasonably justified. The PLA expenditure, especially if the reduction is significant. Berth is not needed and could be removed or reduced The current Government budget situation is different 5.6 One approach, which could be taken as a starting point, in scale. now from the time when this project was approved. It is to give an area of the harbour a value the same as an would therefore seem a public responsibility to reduce area of reclamation which would be sold for 6.2 The existing reclamation contract provides for variations the amount of expenditure on public works which are no commercial/office purposes with a plot ratio of 5, which to be made during the process of that contract so that longer necessary. Unfortunately, the Review presented would likely be the best use in Central. A site like this changes to the design and construction requirements the conclusion that not one single item could be deleted could have a value of approximately $10,000 per square can be introduced. The Government has already made or reduced from this contract. If any alternative had foot site area. It may be possible to establish an variations in relation to the seawall dredging been provided and properly assessed then the relative argument that the public value of the harbour would be requirements relating to the PLA berth. savings in terms of public funding could have been greater than the land, but the degree of greater value identified. would be subject to debate. As such, the view that it 6.3 It is likely that the Government will respond to the would have a value no less than the land is taken. proposals made in this submission to reduce the 5.4 The Review gave a high importance to the amount of amount of reclamation, by stating that they are additional time a construction method would take even 5.7 In the Review, a cost comparison for pumping station committed to a contract and that it cannot be changed. though it resulted in less reclamation. However the foundation systems was made which would have We suggest that the Board has the responsibility to alternative view would be that, if it took an additional 12 resulted in a saving of 6 metres of reclamation. It was review the information placed before it and to consider months to complete a project but saved a significant concluded that this saving in reclamation was out of whether the extent of each component of the portion of the harbour from reclamation then that 12 proportion to the construction costs of achieving this reclamation is still justified. If it is not justified, then the months delay is inconsequential in the totality of time reduction in reclamation. However, an area of Board should take steps to amend the Outline Zoning that will relate to the continued existence of that portion approximately 5,700 square metres of harbour could be Plan and to request that relevant variations be made to of the harbour. The likely impact on the length of a saved by a 6-metre reduction in the relevant portion of the contract to implement such changes. contract period is insignificant in this context. The “cost reclamation. The value would be $107,500 per square of time” in this respect is irrelevant, or insignificant, if a metre. The additional reclamation would have a reasonably longer construction period would save a part “community value” or opportunity cost of $612,750,000 of the harbour. should the design which reduced the amount of reclamation not be adopted. The cost of the most expensive foundation option was $120,000,000 which if looked at in these terms was a reasonable cost to accept as there was a significant “community value” to be achieved through less reclamation.

21 7. Urban Design and Landscape Strategy from the major distributor Road P2 and areas for on the corridor”. The main issue is to obtain recreation and leisure use”. pedestrian access by new structures over P2. 7.1 The Explanatory Statement for the current Central District (Extension) Outline Zoning Plan contains a The applicant is of the view that too much prominence is The Alternative Urban Design Proposal description of the “Planning and Urban Design given to the need for unnecessary utility facilities such Concepts” in paragraph 7. In preparing this rezoning as the pump stations. The public already complains 7.5 Figure 9 is an Urban Design and Landscape Master submission the basic principles stated in the about the obstruction and nuisance maintenance of the Plan indicating the proposed extensive public open Explanatory Statement have been identified and then pump imposed on their use of the waterfront in space for the area. This is an increase over that on the the ability of the provisions on the Outline Zoning Plan CRI. This comment clearly indicates that there is a Outline Zoning Plan by removing the “Groundscraper” to ensure that these objectives will be achieved have need to locate pump houses away from the area of and “Festival Market” developments, Roads P1, P2 and been examined. The alternatives proposed in this greatest public amenity along the waterfront. The D6 and reducing the OU(1) and OU(2) development. submission have then been determined so that they negative impact that Road P2 has on the enjoyment of The principal urban design objectives are :- better achieve the stated objectives. the waterfront should have been a reason for removing it rather than buffering it. (a) to create a magnificent public park along the Main Design Objectives in the Explanatory Statement waterfront on the land which is to be reclaimed The Design Corridors from the harbour; 7.2 The full Explanatory Statement should be read to understand the approach taken. However, the following 7.4 Three design corridors have been identified in the (b) to ensure that the public park is readily are the main over-riding objectives:- Explanatory Statement:- accessible by pedestrians from adjoining areas at ground level; (a) “Restructure the existing waterfront and create a (a) The Statue Square Corridor and Historic Corridor world class waterfront district with unique (d) to ensure that the design and use of the public development opportunities that cannot be The proposal is for a “linear park” to extend from park is not compromised by the unnecessary accommodated within the existing urban area.” Statue Square to the new Star Ferry Pier, intrusion of roads and utility structures. crossing Connaught Road, Road P1 and Road (b) “Create a truly memorable place at the heart of P2. In reality this ‘linear park’ would be an open The Waterfront Park the city symbolising the spirit of Hong Kong”. space deck on top of a 4 storey 16mPD high. It would completely obstruct any 7.6 The Waterfront Park is the main result of the The applicant agrees that the creation of a world class views and would remove any ground level reclamation from the harbour. The park will be able to waterfront district as a truly memorable place should be pedestrian activity. The effect of this proposal as accommodate various activity spaces for the public and a priority. However, this place should be a public place viewed from Statue Square is illustrated in Figure the originally proposed environmentally and pedestrian- for public enjoyment and the only developments should 8. It effectively turns public space into a friendly transport system. It is specifically proposed that be limited ones which facilitate the enjoyment of that shopping centre and impacts views into the this be an extension of the existing tram system – a public place. “Unique development opportunities” are corridor from the existing buildings and roads. Hong Kong Icon. not appropriate on land reclaimed from the harbour. (b) The Civic Corridor 7.7 This park is considerably larger than that proposed in The Urban Waterfront the Outline Zoning Plan as the excessive areas for This relates to the Tamar site and the proposal commercial development and roads have been deleted. 7.3 The Central Waterfront is seen as : - for the Government Headquarters and the Road P2 has been deleted and this enables the focal Legislative Council Building. The main concern points form the three design corridors to be linked at (a) “essential to provide a unifying edge to the city in is to establish a continuous pedestrian link to the ground level. The space available for festivals and the form of a large public open space at the waterfront. This is achieved by an elevated link celebrations has therefore been expanded. Four sites waterfront which should be able to provide over a depressed road P2. have been proposed for development of two-storeyed various activity spaces for the public and to buildings to provide “Waterfront related Commercial and provide the much needed east-west pedestrian (c) The Arts and Entertainment Corridor Leisure Uses”. These buildings will provide focal points connection in the area”. of a scale compatible with the general pedestrian use of This comprises a “network of footbridge links the Waterfront Park. Additional buildings and structures (b) it “also includes areas for water cooling pumping between the existing cultural buildings … and the will be provided within the general design of the park, stations and associated facilities and a buffer future potential cultural-oriented developments and specifically related to the enjoyment of it by the public. The size of the space available provides an

22

FIGURE 8

Ground Level Views

of Statue Square

Government Proposal

Existing Situation

Government proposed Groundscraper extends over Connaught Road into Statue Square, obstructing views. The alternative proposal is to provide a continuous open space view corridor.

23

FIGURE 9 Proposed Urban Design and Conceptual Landscape Plan 24

FIGURE 10

The Statue Square and Historic Corridor

Existing Situation

Government Proposal

Existing Star Ferry Car Park building replaced by a shopping centre 4 storeys high and 420m long

25

Alternative Proposal

Groundscraper Shopping Centre replaced by a new urban square called “City Hall Square” which would become a major focal public activity area adjacent to the listed City Hall complex

26 opportunity for significant “greening” and the creation of centre. The retention of the Post Office Building Table One : Comparison of Provision of Public a public space unlike anywhere along the harbour front. on the Western side of the square would re- Areas in square metres enforce this theme and the spatial quality of the The Design Corridors corridor. Outline Rezoning Difference 7.8 The same three corridors have been identified and (b) The Civic Corridor Zoning Proposal enhanced in this proposal:- Plan Since the publication of the Outline Zoning Plan City Hall Square 9,677 27,545 +17,868 (a) The Statue Square Corridor (Figure 10) the long term use of the Tamar site has become uncertain with plans for building the Government Waterfront Park 97,176 172,146 +74,970 To block the view corridor from the Hong Kong Headquarters and Legco Chambers on the site Tamar 20,258 16,819 -3,439 Bank Building to the Star Ferry by a shopping having been deferred or scrapped. However, it Arts and centre 16mPD high and 420 metres long, as has been assumed that this site will continue to Entertainment 19,053 10,370 -8,683 proposed on the Outline Zoning Plan is be reserved for an important civic use. The Corridor incompatible with the planning objectives. The deletion of road P2 makes it possible for the Total 146,164 226,880 +80,716 alternative proposal is to delete this building and open space from this site to flow at ground level

create a true open space corridor at ground level. into the waterfront Park, as one continuous and

The main component would be to replace the important public area. The Civic Corridor is

existing Star Ferry Car Park building with a new therefore significantly enhanced by this easy and

urban square called “City Hall Square” recreating uninterrupted connection.

a focal point from the early 1900’s. The existing

(c) The Arts and Entertainment Corridor City Hall Square, early 1900’s

The provision of minor access roads in place of P2 completely changes the linkages as they can now be conveniently provided at ground level. The GIC(2) site and the OU(1) building will reinforce the cultural and entertainment character of the area.

Increased Provision of Public Space

7.9 The proposal is to significantly increase the public use that can be achieved from the reclamation that is being carried out. The provision of the CWB underground has pedestrian underpass leading to Statue Square been promoted by government as a means for could be widened and enhanced, while the improving the general environment in the area. This pedestrian connection to the Waterfront Park can be achieved and the amount of quality public open could be achieved with a ground level priority space greatly enhanced. pedestrian crossing. To the north of this road the view corridor would continue through the 7.10 Table 1 provides a comparison of the various areas Waterfront Park to the new Star Ferry. A available for public use on the current Outline Zoning weather protected ground level pedestrian link Plan and those on the rezoning proposal, and can be will provide comfortable access from the existing compared in Figure 11. While increase in site area is footbridge system and the City Hall Square to the significant, this must also be considered in the context Star Ferry and public piers. The principal of the improved quality of the space and the improved objective is to not only create a view corridor at accessibility for pedestrians. It provides tremendous ground level but to create an interesting focal scope for a magnificent waterfront. point around the City Hall complex, reinforcing it’s importance as a historic, civic and cultural

27

FIGURE 11

Comparison of Open Space Provision

Existing proposed open space obstructed by roads and development

Alternative proposal of continuous and expansive public open space which is 8ha greater than the Government proposal

28 8. Proposed Amendments to the Outline Zoning Plan 8.3 Deletion of the CDA Zone (Item C) 8.5 Deletion of Roads P1 and D6 (Item E)

The following are proposed as specific amendments to 8.3.1 Amendment Item C relates to the deletion of the CDA A remnant portion of Road P1, and associated access the existing Central District (Extension) Outline Zoning zone for the “Groundscraper” as there is no justification road D6, are located to the north and east of the current Plan and are illustrated on Figure 12. for a large commercial development of this nature on CDA zone. With the deletion of the CDA zone and the land which was formerly part of the Harbour. The reduction in size of the OU(2) zone, these roads are no deletion of this zone will enable the existing ground level longer necessary and converted to "Open Space". 8.1 Reduction of Reclamation within CRIII (Item A) open space in Statue Square to be retained and the existing Star Ferry car park to be converted to open The technical submissions relating to the design of the space. The existing Post Office Building is retained as 8.6 Deletion of Road P2 (Item F) sea wall and the alternative means for accommodating “G/IC” with a maximum building height equivalent to the the air conditioning requirements of existing buildings height of the existing building. The Traffic Impact Assessment has shown that P2 is clearly indicate that the amount of reclamation is not necessary when the CWB is implemented. The road excessive within the CRIII area as shown by 8.3.2 The zoning for the new reclamation portion of the CDA can be significantly reduced in size and need not extend Amendment Item A. In view of this conclusion, the CFA zone area is changed to predominantly "Open Space" past the Tamar Site. The areas no longer reserved for "Over-riding Public Need Test" cannot be met and the so as to provide a public park of a significant size. Two “Road” are rezoned to "Open Space". The open space Board should amend the Plan so as to conform with the sites are rezoned to “OU(Waterfront Commercial and decks and elevated walkways are also removed and PHO. The actual reduction in the amount of Leisure Uses)”, with a maximum plot ratio of 2 and a replaced by “Open Space”. reclamation could then be implemented through maximum building height of 2 storeys. This scale is variations to the contract now in progress. This would reasonable so as to provide activity and life on the result in a reduction in reclamation of approximately harbour front. A portion is rezoned to “road” to the north 8.7 Consequential Changes to “GIC(2)” and “O” Zones 2.4ha. of City Hall Square. near the Wan Chai West Sewage Screening Plant. (Item G)

8.2 Reduction of Reclamation outside CRIII (Item B) 8.4 Reduction in Size of OU(2) Zone (Item D) With the deletion of Road P2, a larger area of open space can be created by reducing the size of the GIC(2) This indicates the area of excessive reclamation which 8.4.1 The need for sites for buildings to provide a focus for site, while part of the “O” zone near the Sewage Plant is proposed outside the limits of the CRIII contract and activities and interest on the harbour-front is recognised can be rezoned for an OU(2) site to provide for is therefore not committed in any way. The Board must as important. However, these need to be in scale with entertainment and commercial uses as part of the review the need for this reclamation and it is submitted the use of the site by people, and should therefore be of “Cultural Corridor”. that there is no over-riding public need for this portion of 2 to 3 storeys in height. These buildings should only be reclamation. To conform with the CFA decision this for uses which complement the public use of the amount of reclamation must be deleted from the Outline waterfront for such things as restaurants, recreational 8.8 Consolidated Plan Zoning Plan. As a consequence the extent of the and tourist activities. Commercial office use should not Outline Zoning Plan should be reduced and areas be permitted, only offices ancillary to the main permitted Figure 13 is a plan which consolidates all of the zoned “O”, “Marine Basin”, “OU(1)” “Openable uses. changes into one new plan which is proposed as the Causeway” and “OU(2)” deleted from the plan. This amended plan for consideration by the Board. would result in a reduction of approximately 2.2ha of 8.4.2 Amendment Item D proposes the reduction of OU(2) reclamation. site for the “Festival Market” development so that the public views from City Hall are retained. This is limited to 2 plot ratio and 2 storeys in height. The majority of the OU(2) site is rezoned for public open space.

29 Item A Reduction of Reclamation within CRIII

Item B Reduction of Reclamation outside CRIII

Item C Deletion of the CDA Zone

Item D Reduction in Size of OU(2) Zone

Item E Deletion of Roads P1 and D6

Item F Deletion of Road P2

Item G Consequential Changes to “GIC(2)” and “O” Zones near the Wan Chai

West Sewage Screening Plant

FIGURE 12 Proposed Amendments to the Outline Zoning Plan

30

FIGURE 13 Proposed New Outline Zoning Plan 31 9. Procedural Matters 10 Conclusion 10.6 The SPH respectfully requests the Board to consider the proposed rezoning items carefully and thoroughly, There are a number of procedural matters which need 10.1 The proposals in this submission place before the Town as public expectations are so high in anticipating that to be briefly addressed. Planning Board the independent technical information the Board will provide a balanced review and will which has been prepared for the SPH. In making its implement these changes. By doing this the Board will assessment of the validity of the reclamation now taking ensure that the public gains the most through the 9.1 Minimum Reclamation and the CFA Decision place in Central, it is clear that the traditional implementation of a magnificent public asset to replace engineering approach to the design of the reclamation is the heritage that has been lost through reclamation of The Board when considering the proposed not adequate to meet the recently defined requirements the harbour. Amendments to the Central District (Extension) Outline of the PHO. There are alternative designs and Zoning Plan is obliged to consider them within the approaches, and different forms of construction which 10.7 The result of the proposals in this submission would be context of the PHO and the decision of the Court of would result in less reclamation being necessary without a reduction in reclamation by 4.6ha and an increase in Final Appeal with the Over-riding Public Need Test. affecting the provision of the CWB. public open space of 8ha. These changes will improve The proposals submitted in this rezoning request clearly the quality of the public assets on a potentially dramatic show that areas within CRIII and those to the east 10.2 The worst aspect of the current reclamation is that not waterfront. outside CRIII involve reclamation which does not meet enough attention has been given to providing the the Test. These areas are excessive, are not for a highest quality public waterfront. The design of the area public purpose and the proposed use can be located to along the waters edge will be totally based on the need other alternative sites which require less reclamation or to unnecessarily accommodate salt water pumping no reclamation. Once the Board arrives at that stations, not to provide the best public access and conclusion it is therefore bound by the PHO to propose amenity. amendments to the amount of reclamation shown on the Outline Zoning Plan. 10.3 There will be large areas of the reclamation which will be sold for private interests and the Board should accept the responsibility it has to ensure that the best 9.2 Referral of Plan back by CE public use is made of the reclamation by rezoning these areas. The vibrancy of the waterfront should be 9.2.1 Under Section 12 of the Town Planning Ordinance the guaranteed by the provision of buildings of an CE can refer the Central District (Extension) Outline appropriate scale and size, as shown in this submission. Zoning Plan back to the Town Planning Board for amendment. It is common for the Board to consider 10.4 The traditional approach of reclaiming land and placing applications for Rezoning Requests and if they are unnecessary surface roads on it must be stopped. The accepted then the Board can request the CE to refer the removal of P1 and P2 will provide a better public plan back for Review. environment and more open space. The surface roads must be minimised because the harbour has been 9.2.2 In this Rezoning Request there are a number of matters sacrificed for the CWB, and use of this by-pass must placed before the Board for consideration. The now be maximised. applicant is of the view that all of the matters raised are sufficient to enable the Board to request referral of the 10.5 The Board cannot avoid considering this submission in Outline Zoning Plan back for amendment. Even if the the context of the PHO. In doing so it must look at the Board does not accept that all of the proposals justify reclamation outside the CRIII contract area and decide amendment to the plan, if one of the proposals is whether the inclusion of this in the Outline Zoning Plan accepted then the plan should be amended for that can now be justified. It is the strong view of the SPH reason. In particular the rezoning of the CDA zone to a that this portion of reclamation cannot be justified and public use is a matter which would obtain a large the plan must therefore be amended. amount of public support.

32