Highways Department Agreement No. CE 43/2010 (HY) Central Kowloon Route – Design and Construction Cogent and Convincing Materials for Temporary Reclamation in Kowloon Bay 217722-REP-044-02 Revised Final | February 2013 Arup-Mott MacDonald Joint Venture Level 5 Festival Walk Arup-Mott MacDonald 80 Tat Chee Avenue This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. Kowloon Tong It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party. Joint Venture Kowloon Hong Kong www.arup.com Job number 217722 Highways Department Agreement No. CE 43/2010 (HY) Central Kowloon Route - Design and Construction Revised Final Updated Cogent and Convincing Materials for Temporary Reclamation in Kowloon Bay Contents 6 CONCLUSIONS 22 Whether There is an Overriding Public Need for Reclamation 22 Page No Reasonable Alternative to Reclamation 22 Minimum Extent of Reclamation 22 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Phase 2 Public Engagement Exercise 23 Background 1 Independent Expert Review 23 Underwater Tunnel in Kowloon Bay 1 Compliance with the PHO 23 Protection of the Harbour Ordinance (PHO) 1 Report Structure 2 Appendices 2 OVERRIDING PUBLIC NEED 3 Introduction 3 Appendix A Traffic Justifications 3 Independent Expert Review of Cogent and Convincing Materials Report for Temporary Reclamation Benefits of the Project 8 at Kowloon Bay by Professor William H.K. LAM Conclusions 8 Appendix B 3 NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES TO RECLAMATION 9 Independent Expert Review of Cogent and Convincing Materials Report for Temporary Reclamation Introduction 9 at Kowloon Bay by Professor Charles W.W. NG Constraints in Design and Construction Arrangements 9 Construction Methods Not Involving Reclamation 10 Construction Method Involving Reclamation 14 Alternative Alignments 16 4 MINIMUM EXTENT OF TEMPORARY RECLAMATION 18 Introduction 18 Length of Reclamation 18 Width of Reclamation 18 Duration of Temporary Reclamation 19 Summary of Minimum Reclamation Requirements 19 5 PUBLIC CONSULTATION 20 Public Engagement in Previous Stage of Study 20 Public Forum on 18 July 2009 20 Focus Group Meeting on 20 June 2009 20 Conclusions from Previous Stage Public Engagement 20 Public Engagement in Current Stage of Study 20 Public Views on Temporary Reclamation in Current Stage of Study 21 Briefing Sessions and Consultations with District Councils 21 Consultation with Harbourfront Commission 21 Professional Forum on Temporary Reclamation at Kowloon Bay 22 Public Forum on Temporary Reclamation at Kowloon Bay 22 044-02 | Revised Final | February 2013 \\HKGNTS19\CIVIL\+CURRENT JOBS\217722 - CENTRAL KOWLOON ROUTE\02 PROJECT ADMINISTRATION\FILING\4.3 OUTGOING REPORTS\REP-044-02 REVISED FINAL CCM REPORT (REF. 0795)_MAR 2013\ENGLISH\RAW\CCM.DOCX Highways Department Agreement No. CE 43/2010 (HY) Central Kowloon Route - Design and Construction Revised Final Updated Cogent and Convincing Materials for Temporary Reclamation in Kowloon Bay 1 INTRODUCTION Protection of the Harbour Ordinance (PHO) Background Presumption against Reclamation 1.1 Central Kowloon Route (CKR) is a 4.7 km long dual 3-lane trunk road across central Kowloon 1.4 The PHO originally resulted from a private member’s bill proposed in 1996 by the Society for linking West Kowloon at Yau Ma Tei Interchange with the Kai Tak Development and road network at Protection of the Harbour. The bill was first enacted as the original Ordinance in June 1997 and was Kowloon Bay in East Kowloon. Figure 1-1 shows the layout plan and longitudinal section of CKR. then modified in the course of the legislative process. The PHO provides protection and preservation of 1.2 In the investigation and preliminary design stage in 2007 to 2009, we reviewed over 40 the harbour by establishing a presumption against reclamation. In December 1999, the Ordinance was alignment options in the previous CKR studies. The present alignment was selected after comparing further amended to its present form by expanding its scope to cover the whole of Victoria Harbour. the impacts of the various options on buildings/community facilities, environment, land and transport and making reference to public comments collected in the public engagement exercise. The selected 1.5 Section 3 of the Ordinance states: alignment was generally supported by Legislative Council, Yau Tsim Mong, Kowloon City and Kwun Tong District Councils. (1) The harbour is to be protected and preserved as a special public asset and a natural heritage of Hong Kong people and for that purpose there shall be a presumption against reclamation Underwater Tunnel in Kowloon Bay in the harbour. [Section 3(1)] 1.3 A 370 m long section of the CKR tunnel between the Kowloon City Ferry Pier to the Kai Tak (2) All public officers and public bodies shall have regard to the principle stated in subsection Development Area will pass through the seabed of Kowloon Bay. Due to various site constraints, it (1) for guidance in the exercise of any powers vested in them. [Section 3(2)] will have to be constructed using the temporary reclamation method. 1.6 The PHO specifically defines the term “reclamation” as “any work carried out or intended to be carried out for the purpose of forming land from the sea-bed or foreshore”. The definition of “reclamation” in the PHO is specific to the formation of land, implying works that exceed the sea level. It is considered that even smallscale reclamation required for the construction of piers, landing steps, etc. should also comply with the PHO. Judgment of Court of Final Appeal (CFA) in Town Planning Board v Society for Protection of the Harbour Ltd. (on 9 January 2004) 1.7 The Town Planning Board made decisions on the Draft Wan Chai North Outline Zoning Plan Temporary Reclamation at (OZP) (No. S/H25/1), in December 2002 and February 2003, that included proposals for reclamation Kowloon Bay within Victoria Harbour. This was challenged in the legal system by the Society for Protection of the Harbour on the grounds that the Town Planning Board made decisions that were unlawful and/or unreasonable and irrational. 1.8 The appeal was dismissed in the judgment of the CFA handed down on 9 January 2004. The CFA held that – (a) in order to implement the strong and vigorous statutory principle of protection and preservation, the presumption against reclamation must be interpreted in such a way that it can only be rebutted by establishing an overriding public need for reclamation. This can conveniently be referred to as “the overriding public need test”; Figure 1-1 – Alignment of CKR (b) where there is a reasonable alternative to reclamation, an overriding need for reclamation would not be made out. There would be no such overriding need since the need could be met by the alternative means; and 044-02| Revised Final | February 2013 \\HKGNTS19\CIVIL\+CURRENT JOBS\217722 - CENTRAL KOWLOON ROUTE\02 PROJECT ADMINISTRATION\FILING\4.3 OUTGOING REPORTS\REP-044-02 REVISED FINAL CCM REPORT (REF. 0795)_MAR 2013\ENGLISH\RAW\CCM.DOCX Page 1 Highways Department Agreement No. CE 43/2010 (HY) Central Kowloon Route - Design and Construction Revised Final Updated Cogent and Convincing Materials for Temporary Reclamation in Kowloon Bay (c) the extent of the proposed reclamation should not go beyond the minimum of that which No. 1/04 issued by the then Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau on 19 August 2004 to provide is required by the overriding need. guidance for public officers and public bodies in considering and approving reclamation proposals 1.9 Public needs would be community needs. They would include the economic, environmental and including information on the public consultation process for such proposals. social needs of the community. A need should only be regarded as overriding if it is a compelling and 1.16 The contents of the subsequent chapters of this Report are as follows – present need. The need has to be compelling so that it has the requisite force to prevail over the strong public need for protection and preservation. The need has to be a present need in the sense that taking (a) Chapter 2 presents information and assessment supporting the overriding public need into account the time scale of planning exercises, the need would arise within a definite and reasonable for the CKR project; timeframe. If the need would not arise over such a timeframe, it would not have the strength to displace the presumption. A compelling and present need goes far beyond something which is "nice to have", (b) Chapter 3 shows that there are no reasonable alternatives to the proposed temporary desirable, preferable or beneficial. But on the other hand it is not a last resort or something that the reclamation in Kowloon Bay; public “cannot do without”. A present need takes into account the timescale of planning exercises, and the need would arise within a definite and reasonable time frame. (c) Chapter 4 shows that the extent of the proposed temporary reclamation will be the 1.10 The judgment further states that where there is a reasonable alternative to reclamation, an minimum; overriding need for reclamation would not be made. All circumstances should be considered including the economic, environmental and social implications of each alternative. The cost as well as the time (d) Chapter 5 describes the public consultation conducted on the temporary reclamation and delay involved would be relevant. The extent of the proposed reclamation should not go beyond the and summarizes the feedback from the public; and minimum of that which is required by the overriding need. Each area proposed to be reclaimed must be justified. (e) Chapter 6 provides the conclusion on the temporary reclamation and describes the 1.11 In order to enable a public officer or body to be satisfied that the overriding public need test has recommended scheme.