Discussions about land reclamation ‘must be rational’
When Ling Kar-kan was director of planning, he was part of the team that mapped out the Hong Kong 2030+ planning vision and strategy that included the reclamation plan for 1,000 hectares of land to develop the East Lantau Metropolis.
The chief executive’s 2018 Policy Address unveiled the “Lantau Tomorrow Vision” reclamation plan to reclaim 1,700 hectares of land.
In Ling’s view, the two plans do not conflict with each other as it only shows that the land and housing shortage problem is getting more acute, and the government is just hoping to create more land through reclamation.
“Those who criticize or doubt if 1,700 hectares are excessive are simply trying to derail the discussions about reclamation,” he told China Daily.
“Consultancy studies are essential for major projects. When the government commissions a consultant, it will not tell him if it would like to reclaim 1,000 or 1,700 hectares although it surely has a figure in mind.
“The government will allow flexibility by providing room for marine transport channels in the central waters without affecting the water quality and water hydraulics and the coastline. After these constraints are calculated, the area that can be reclaimed will then be ascertained.”
Ling believes that regardless of whether it’s 1,000 or 1,700 hectares, reclamation works will take several phases and several years to complete. It’s good to grasp the opportunity and allow a freer hand for further reclamation if and when it’s necessary to reclaim more areas after completion of the initial phase of reclamation works.
He thinks that 1,700 hectares is not a big figure. “The government may wish to reclaim massive areas of land for housing after the Task Force on Land Supply said the government’s estimated shortfall of 1,200 hectares is too conservative.”
Ling said discussions about the reclamation plans should be conducted in a rational, objective and scientific manner, casting aside sensational, unfounded statements that the “Lantau Tomorrow Vision” project would cost HK$1 trillion and exhaust government coffers.
“Reclamation is an investment, not gambling, because the reclaimed lands will generate financial value, while the reclamation Comment, cost is not spent in one day,” he pointed out.
Ling refuted an argument that the “construction of an artificial island by reclamation is against heaven’s way at a time of global warming and rising water levels”.
The claim was made by former director of the Hong Kong Observatory, Lam Chiu-ying, though Ling did not mention him specifically.
To cope with rising water levels, Ling thinks the formation level of the artificial islands may be built on higher ground.
“When Super Typhoon Mangkhut battered Hong Kong in September last year, Hong Kong International Airport was left unscathed because it was designed and built to resist storms once seen in 200 years. The Hong Kong-ZhuhaiMacao Bridge also survived the typhoon,” he recalled.
“But, in Japan, Kansai International Airport was seriously flooded when it was hit by a typhoon in early September last year, the reason being that the level of the artificial island housing the airport is not high enough.”
Ling urged the special administrative region government to commission a feasibility study on land reclamation for Lantau as soon as possible while the Legislative Council should not stand in the way of approving funding.
A consultancy study on land reclamation is very expensive, but Ling reckons the money is worth spending.
Since a study would take several years to complete, he agreed with the Task Force on Land Supply’s multi-pronged approach to releasing more lands by pursuing various options concurrently to save time.